Saint AUGUSTIN d'HIPPONE, évêque, Père et Docteur de l'Église (2)

From his works,
and from his life, written by St. Possidius, his disciple, bishop of Calama.
See the history of his life, diligently compiled by Tillemont. t. 13. See also
Ceillier, t. 11, 12; Orsi, t. 8–12; the life of St. Austin, compiled in Latin
by F. Lancelot, and that in English by the learned and pious Mr. Abraham
Woodhead, fellow of University College, Oxon, who embraced the Catholic faith
about the year 1666, and died in devout retirement at Hoxton, near London, in
1678.

A.D. 430

SO great is the
veneration which popes, councils, and the whole church have paid to the memory
of this glorious saint, through every succeeding age since his time, that to
load our history with a list of his illustrious panegyrists would be a
superfluous labour; and barely to copy the sober praises, which the most
judicious Christian critics have bestowed on his extraordinary learning and
sanctity, would be like carrying water to the sea. For the name of the great
St. Austin is alone the highest eulogium and panegyric, raises in all persons
the most exalted idea, and commands the most profound respect. This perfect
model of true penitents, this triumphing champion of our holy faith and
confounder of heresies, this bright light and most glorious doctor of the
church of Christ, was born on the 13th of November, in the year 354, at
Tagaste, a small town of Numidia, in Africa, not far from Hippo, but at some
distance from the sea, which the saint had never seen till he was grown up. His
parents were of good condition, yet not very rich; his father, Patricius, was
an idolater, and of a hasty choleric disposition; but by the holy example and
prudent conduct of St. Monica, his wife, he at length learned the humility and
meekness of the Christian religion, and was baptized a little before his death.
She bore him several children; St. Austin speaks of his brother Navigius, who
left a family behind him, and of a sister who died an abbess. Our saint had the
misfortune to fall, in his youth, like the prodigal son, into the most
frightful gulf of vice and spiritual miseries, of which himself has drawn a
lively portraiture in the first books of his Confessions, both for his own
greater humiliation, and to deplore his blindness and ingratitude towards God,
to set forth the infinite riches of the divine mercy, and to propose the
example of his own fall as a warning to others. If we pursue him in his youth
through all those mazes in which he wandered and bewildered himself so long, it
is only that we may learn to discover and shun the snares and dangers with which
we are encompassed, and cleave more closely to God.

St. Austin
begins his Confessions by adoring the unchangeable and incomprehensible majesty
of God, and by praising his infinite mercy, which in a wonderful manner brought
him into this dying life (shall I call it, says he,) or living death, into
which he himself knew not how or whence he came. The saint thanks Him who gave
him this being, formed his body, furnished it with senses, and beautified it
with a comely form, and who bestowed on him a mind or soul; from his birth
provided him food, and constantly attended him with the comforts of his mercy,
commanding him to praise his adorable majesty for all these things, to confess
to Him, and sing to His holy name, who is the Most High.1 The saint cries out to God,2 “Let thy mercy suffer me to speak: what am I to Thee,
that thou shouldst command me to love Thee, and shouldst be angry with me, and
threaten me with great miseries if I love Thee not? Is it then a small misery
not to love Thee?” He confesses, with regret, that he began to offend his
gracious God even in that age which is falsely called innocent, which was
passed away without leaving any traces in his memory, and which was, with
respect to the darkness of his oblivion of it, much like to that which he
passed in his mother’s womb. He accused himself thus from what he observed in
other children; for he perceived that little ones are easily possessed with
jealousy, anger, and revenge, which they sometimes express by their pale and
envious looks; and they require with tears what would be hurtful if granted,
and they rage and swell against their betters and those who owe them no
subjection, and would have them to comply with their will, and to obey them
even in things that are hurtful; they also suck in very early sentiments of
vanity and pride. He laments that custom should make it appear against reason
for children in this tender age to suffer correction for what certainly
deserves reprehension, and what is strengthened by being flattered, and becomes
sinful upon the first dawning of the use of reason; whereas there is no age
which is not docile, and capable of some degree of correction by the senses,
whereby the first seeds of the passions may be crushed.3 He deplores that when he had learned to speak, and
launched further out into the tempestuous society of human life, though as yet
wholly depending on the authority of his parents and the beck of elders, he
multiplied his sins and miseries. By the care of his pious mother he was
instructed in the Christian religion, and taught to pray.4 He was made a catechumen by being marked with the
sign of the cross, and by blessed salt being put in his mouth; and whilst he
went to school in his own town, falling dangerously ill, he desired baptism,
and his mother got every thing ready for it; but he on a sudden grew better,
and it was deferred.5 This was done lest he should afterwards stain the
grace of that sacrament, considering the great billows of temptations that were
like to beset him after his childhood. This custom of deferring baptism, for
fear of sinning under the weight and obligations of that sacrament, St. Austin
most justly condemns; but then the want of a sense of the sanctity of that
sacrament, and the frequent perfidiousness and sacrileges of Christians in
defiling it, by relapsing into sin, is an abuse which, in these latter ages,
calls for our tears and for all our zeal. The church has long since forbidden
the baptism of infants ever to be deferred: but it is one of the principal
duties of pastors to instruct the faithful in the rigorous obligations which
that sacrament lays them under, and to teach them highly to value and to watch
carefully to preserve the grace which they received by it.

Patricius,
who was a worldly man, and continued still an idolater, perceived that his son
Austin had an excellent genius, and a wonderful disposition for learning, and
with a view to his future preferment, spared nothing to breed him up a scholar.
Here the saint thanks God, that though the persons who pressed him to learn,
had no other end in view than to satisfy a desire of penurious riches and
ignominious glory; yet divine Providence made a good use of their error,
and forced him to learn for his great profit and manifold advantage.6 But herein he accuses himself that he sinned, often
studying only by constraint, disobeying the commands of his parents and
masters, not writing, reading, or minding his lessons so much as was required
of him; and this he did, not for want of wit or memory, but out of the love of
play. He dreaded correction, and prayed to God, when a little one, with great
earnestness, that he might escape punishment at school, regarding it as his
great and grievous evil; for which dread he was derided by his masters and
parents.

Though the age
of children is frequently indocile to severe discipline,7 and stands in need of restraint, yet it is generally
better governed by generous motives of virtue and a filial awe than by much
servile fear; and St. Austin seems to complain of austere pedagogues who
multiply to youth that labour and sorrow through which the sons of Adam are all
obliged to pass; whereas their tasks might often be made in some degree
agreeable, and scholars might be induced to love them upon principles of duty
and virtue; for “no one,” says the saint, “doth well what he doth against his
will.” He takes notice of the miseries of the depraved human condition; for
these severe masters were guilty themselves, in their ambitious projects and
idle amusements and pleasures, of greater follies than they chastised in the
children; only “the toys of men are called business.”8 It was a more fatal abuse that these masters by their
own passions taught children, whose observation nothing escapes, to authorise
themselves in habits of anger, envy, vanity, pride, and the like vices; for the
pedagogue who chastised his scholar for a less fault, in the mean while, if
overcome in some petty dispute by a fellow teacher, was more racked with envy
and choler than the boy ever was when outdone by a playfellow at ball.9 This, however, excuses not the faults of the
scholars. St. Austin humbly acknowledges that he at that age fell also into
vanity, pleasing himself with the pride of surpassing his companions at play,
and loving to have his ears scratched with vain praises, that they might itch
the more. A worse curiosity drew him to the dangerous entertainments of those
who were older—public shows, plays, and other diversions of the theatre. He
declares that God justly turns sin into its own chastisement, its pleasures
always leaving a sting, and filling the mind with gall and bitterness. “For
thou hast ordained it, and so it is,” says he, “that every inordinate affection
should be to itself its own punishment and torment.”10

In
his studies he liked Latin very well, having learned that language from his
nurses, and others with whom he conversed. Whilst he was little he hated Greek,
and the perplexing rules of the grammar of that tongue; and, for want of
understanding it sufficiently, he could not then relish the beauties of Homer;
but the Latin poets became his early delight. Herein he laments that he filled
his head with the wanderings of Æneas, whilst he forgot his own wanderings, and
he shed tears for the death of Dido, when he beheld himself with dry eyes
perishing from God, miserable wretch as he was; “for what can be more
miserable,” says he, “than one that is in misery, yet hath no compassion for
himself? than one who wept for the death of Dido, occasioned by her love for
Æneas, yet wept not for his own death, caused by not loving Thee, O Lord?”11 Poesy, however, not only enlarged his knowledge of
languages, and exceedingly opened the faculties of his mind, especially that of
invention, the ground of a creating or original genius, but this study also
gave him a sublimity of thought and expression, by its exalted eloquence, by
which, with elegance and decent propriety, it raises the mind above nature,
which rhetoric closely confines within its bounds; and to poetry he was
indebted for the art of employing in oratory frequent lively images and bold
touches.

The saint thanks
God for many good endowments of his childhood,12 and for his progress in learning, all the fruits of
which he offers to God; and begs that he may be enabled to refer them purely to
his service, so as never to speak, write, read, cast accounts, or make use of
any other profitable thing that he had learned but for the divine honour.13 He humbly asks pardon for the sins he had committed
by taking delight in his learning, and in the misuse of his wit, being pleased
with applause given to his exercises above those of many others of his age,
which was mere smoke and wind; his wit and tongue ought rather to have been
employed in the praises of God.14 He complains that some scholars were more ashamed and
afraid of incurring the disgrace of men by a barbarism or solecism, than they
were of offending God; and that an orator will sometimes declaim before a
mortal judge with implacable hatred against his enemy, or detract from his
reputation, whilst he is extremely careful not to let slip any impropriety in
his discourse.15 From such a pernicious example he learned to be more
afraid of uttering a solecism in discourse than of being guilty of envy, or of
deceiving his tutor, masters, or others by lies for the sake of play,16 for which sins he grievously laments. He also
deplores the sins of theft which he committed by stealing little things out of
his parents’ cellar, or from their table, either to gratify his gluttony, or to
give to his playfellows. He confesses in particular that one night he and a
company of wicked youths stole some pears from a neighbour’s tree near his
father’s garden, out of mere wantonness, and a lust of doing what they ought
not to do; for the stolen fruit was bad, and they only threw it to the hogs.17 In this sin he laments the strange seduction of bad
company, and of that friendship which is an enemy to the soul. Because some
among such companions say: “Let us go, let us do it,” every one is ashamed not
to be shameless.18 The most fatal rock against which Austin split, was
the execrable vice of impurity, into which he fell in the sixteenth year of his
age. He was led into this gulf by reading lascivious plays in Terence, by
sloth, by frequenting stage entertainments, and by bad company and example.

Austin went to
school first in his own town; then his father sent him to Madaura, a
neighbouring city, where he studied grammar, poetry, and rhetoric. When he was
sixteen years old his father made him return to Tagaste, designing to send him
to finish his studies at Carthage; but before he executed this project, he kept
him a whole year at home. During this time the young man, slighting the good
advice of his mother, fell into lewd company, being induced to it by idleness;
and by the indulgence of his father, who had not yet received baptism, and
whose only ambition was to make this son a scholar. Youth ought to be
constantly applied to some serious employment; a short interval of idleness
between coming from school and going to business, often enervates the mind,
takes off the edge of its activity and love of application, and destroys the
advantage of good habits, and the fruit of whole years; and the disorder is
often beyond recovery. Austin, during the interval of this year, gave himself
up to pastimes and diversions, particularly to sporting and catching of birds,
in which he bore incredible fatigues. In the mean time his passions grew
unruly, and his father took no care of his growing up in virtue provided he was
eloquent. His mother indeed secretly admonished him with great solicitude to
keep himself free from vice; “which,” says the saint, “seemed to me but the
admonitions of a woman, which I was ashamed to obey; whereas they were thy
admonitions, O God, and I knew it not. By her thou didst speak to me, and I
despised thee in her.19 Yet I knew it not, and I rushed on with so much
blindness, that amongst my equals I was ashamed of being less guilty than
others when I heard them bragging of their flagitious actions; and I had a mind
to do the like.”20

Austin went to
Carthage towards the end of the year 370, in the beginning of the seventeenth
year of his age. There he easily held the foremost place in the school of
rhetoric, and applied himself to his studies with so much eagerness and
pleasure, that it was with great difficulty he was drawn from them. But his
motives were vanity and ambition, and in his studies he was pleased with pride,
and puffed up with self-conceit; though he hated open arrogance, and abhorred
the abusive wits called Eversores, who made it their cruel diversion to
insult and impudently deride others, especially strangers, only to gratify a
malicious mirth. Vincent the Rogatist, his enemy, acknowledges,21 that he always loved decency and good manners even in
his irregularities; but this was no more than a worldly and exterior decency;
for he plunged himself headlong into the filth of impurity. The world
authorizes many criminal occasions of vice, which, by the sanction of example,
pass among many for innocent. This reflection extorted from St. Austin after
his conversion the following complaint:22—“Woe to thee, O torrent of custom among men! Who will
resist thee? who will stop thy impetuous tide?” He was by the force of example
drawn into wicked company and dangerous amusements, especially into a fondness
for tragedy and other stage entertainments, which, being full of the images of
the most infamous passions, entertained that fire which had already begun to
devour him.23

His father
Patricius died soon after he had been baptized, in 371: but Austin still
continued his studies at Carthage. Among the works of Cicero which he read, in
the nineteenth year of his age, he fell upon one which is now lost, entitled
Hortensius, which was an exhortation to philosophy. By it he was strongly
affected, and was inflamed with a great desire and love of wisdom, and filled
with a contempt of riches and honours, and from that time laid aside all
expectation of magistracies and high worldly preferments. Being only twenty
yeas old he heard the masters speak with great boasting of Aristotle’s book, of
the ten categories or predicaments; he therefore eagerly read it over by
himself, and understood it all without a master. But this book led him to place
God in the category of substance, and to reason of him in a corporeal manner.24

He at length
grew weary of reading Cicero’s Hortensius, and the books of the heathen
philosophers, because Christ was not mentioned in them, whose name he had
sucked in, as it were, with his mother’s milk, and deeply retained. He desired
therefore to read the holy scriptures; but was offended with the simplicity of
the style; and swelling with pride as if he was endued with a great genius, he
could not relish their humility, or penetrate their spirit.25 Soon after this he fell into the sect of the
Manichees,26 in which he continued between eight and nine years
from the nineteenth to the twenty-eighth year of his age. Vice, especially that
of impurity, strangely degrades and infatuates the mind, creates an utter
distaste and loathing of spiritual things, and renders the soul incapable of
raising her thoughts and affections to heavenly objects; this foul vice blinds
the understanding, debauches the faculty of reason, and perverts the will and
all the other powers of the soul, of which no example can be more amazing than
that of king Solomon. This dreadful blindness accounts for the fall of so great
a genius as Austin was into the most monstrous of heresies. Pride was another
occasion of his ruin. “I sought with pride,” says he,27 “what only humility could make me find. Fool that I
was, I left the nest imagining myself able to fly; and I fell to the ground.”
His vanity was soothed and flattered by the Manichees, who pretended to try
every thing by the test of bare reason, and scoffing at all those who paid a
due deference to the authority of the Catholic Church, as if they shackled
reason, and walked in trammels. It was by this artifice that he was seduced and
caught in their nets; they promised to show him every thing by demonstration,
banishing all mystery, and calling faith weakness, credulity, and ignorance.
“They said that, setting aside dreadful authority, they would lead men
to God, and free them from all error by reason alone.”28 Isaac Beausobre hence infers, that before St.
Austin’s time Catholics furiously extolled the authority of the church.29 He ought to have added, that St. Austin afterwards,
upon mature consideration, found that it is highly rational, with regard to
supernatural truths, to acquiesce in the testimony of God, manifested by the
authority of the church derived from him, guided by his unerring Spirit, in
conserving unviolated his divine revelation, of which we have the strongest
assurance given us by the same revelation, confirmed to us by evident miracles,
and other motives of credibility, to which, upon an impartial review, no one
can prudently refuse assent.

Modern
Socinians, and others, who boast mightily of making reason their only guide,
are driven by their own principles into the most glaring inconsistencies and
monstrous absurdities against reason itself, as St. Austin afterwards
discovered of the ancient Manichees: whereas reason leads us, as it were, by
the hand to divine revelation, which, far from opposing it, shows its
insufficiency in things that lie beyond its reach, and offers its own noonday
light to direct us safely to the most necessary and important truths. By
slighting and contemning this secure and sober method of attaining the true
knowledge of divine mysteries, so great a wit unhappily fell into the snares of
the Manichees. Writing to his friend Honoratus, who was still detained in those
errors, to which he had himself persuaded him, he lays open this to have been
the source of his ruin, that, relying too much on the strength of his own
reason, he despised the direction and authority of the Catholic church. “You
know, Honoratus,” says he,30 “that upon no other ground we adhered to these men.
What else made me, rejecting, for almost nine years together, the religion
which was instilled into me in my childhood, a follower and diligent hearer of
these men, only their saying that we are overawed by superstition, and that
faith is obtruded on us without reason being given; whereas they tie none to
believe, except upon the truth being first examined and cleared up. Who by such
promises would not have been inveigled? especially a young man, desirous of
truth, and by a reputation among learned men in the schools, already grown
proud and talkative. They derided the simplicity of the Catholic faith, which
commanded men to believe before they were taught by evident reason what was
truth.” St. Austin frequently teaches, in his other works, that this is the
general method of other heretics, and the usual occasion of miscarriages in
faith. “It is,” says he,31 “as it were, a rule amongst all heretics, that they
endeavour to overbear with the name and promise of reason, the most steady
authority of the church, which is firmly founded; and this they are forced to
do, because they perceive themselves to be most contemptibly worsted, if their
authority should once come to be compared with that of the Catholic church.”
And in another place:32 “All heretics generally deceive by the ostentatious
promise of science, and reprehend the simplicity of believers.”

St. Austin tells
us, that the chief questions which gravelled him, and to which the Manichees
promised a solution, were: Whence came evil? and the difficulty of forming a
clear apprehension of a spirit; whence he was persuaded to imagine God to be
corporeal; and, by listening to those masters of error, he was brought by
insensible degrees to such folly as to believe, that when a fig is gathered,
both it and its mother-tree weep with milky tears; and that if some Manichæan
saint should eat it (after it has been plucked by another’s crime, and not his
own) particles of good intelligences, or rather of the Deity, which were
imprisoned in the fruit, are restored to liberty.33 However, soon perceiving that these heretics were
more dexterous in disputing against others, than in defending or proving their
own tenets, on this account he remained rather a seeker than a perfect
Manichee, and continuing among them only in the rank of a hearer, he would
never be initiated among their elect. In the meantime his heart was swelled
with pride by his success in frequent disputations with several Catholics, in
which, by the subtlety of his wit, and quickness in reasoning, he seemed
unhappily victorious; and he engaged several of his friends in the same errors
with himself; among others, Alipius, and his patron and benefactor, Romanianus,
in whose house he lodged during his studies at Carthage. He had attained to a
perfect understanding of most of the liberal sciences at scarcely twenty years
of age; but says34 of his learning at that time, because he did not
apply himself with it to the true knowledge of God: “What did this profit me,
when indeed it did me harm?”

In
the twentieth year, to ease his mother of the charge of his education, he left
Carthage, and returning to her, set up a school of grammar and rhetoric at
Tagaste; but she, who was a good Catholic, and never ceased to weep and pray
for his conversion, did not sit at the same table, or eat with him, hoping by
this severity and abhorrence of his heresy, to make him enter into himself.
Some time after, finding her own endeavours to reclaim him unsuccessful, she
repaired to a certain bishop, and with tears besought him to discourse with her
son upon his errors. The prelate excused himself for the present, alleging that
her son was yet unfit for instruction, being intoxicated with the novelty of
his heresy, and bloated with conceit, having often puzzled several Catholics
who had entered the lists with him, and were more zealous than learned. “Only
pray to our Lord for him,” said he, “your son will at length discover his error
and impiety.” She still persisted, with many tears, importuning him that he
would see her unhappy son; but he dismissed her, saying: “Go your way; God
bless you; it cannot be that a child of those tears should perish.” Which words
she received as an oracle from heaven.35 She was also comforted by a dream, in which she
seemed to see a young man, who, having asked the cause of her sorrow and daily
tears, bid her be of good courage, for where she was, there her son also was.
Upon which she, looking about, saw Austin standing upon the same plank with
herself. This assurance, and her confidence in the divine mercy, gave her
present comfort; but she was yet to wait several years for the accomplishment
of her earnest desires, and to obtain it by many importunate prayers and tears,
which she could not but put forth in abundance, while she saw her beloved son
an enemy to that God whom she loved far more than her son or herself.

Austin had a
dear friend, who had been for several years the companion of his studies, to
whom he had been accustomed to unbosom himself without reserve in all his
cares. This individual companion was in the bloom of life, and, through his
persuasion, had been involved in the Manichæan errors. Falling sick, he was
converted to the Catholic church, and baptized. Austin rallied him on that
score, but he, with an unexpected liberty, told him that if he meant to
continue his friend, he should speak to him no more in that manner; and that if
he did, he should fly from him with horror, and regard him as his enemy. This
young man soon after relapsed into a fever, like his first distemper, and died
in great sentiments of piety and religion. The loss of this friend was a grievous
affliction to Austin; his heart was overwhelmed with darkness and grief; he
seemed to see the image of death in every thing that he beheld; his country and
his own house seemed full of horror; all places and things where he had
formerly enjoyed him were turned into bitter torment, because they were now
without him, and Austin’s eyes sought him in all places, though they found him
in none. All things in the world were become irksome and odious to him, because
they did not restore the person whom he had lost, and nothing said to him, as
before everything seemed to do: “He will shortly come to you.” Tears and
mourning had succeeded his friend in the dearest place of his affection, and to
weep or grieve was become the sole pleasure of his life.36

Not being able
any longer to bear his native country, he removed to Carthage, where time and
new connexions wore away his grief. Ambition and vanity had likewise a share in
that step, the capital of Africa being a greater theatre for the displaying of
his abilities. At Carthage he opened a school of rhetoric, gained great
applause in the public disputations, and carried away the principal prizes in
the theatre for the best performances in poesy and oratory; but he laments his
blindness that he was seduced by pride in the sciences, and by superstition,
under a false name of religion; following in the first the emptiness of popular
glory, the shouts of the theatre, and contentious disputes for crowns of hay,
and such like fooleries; and seeking in a false religion to be purged from the
sins of his intemperance and lusts, by carrying food to the elect and saints,
which was to be moulded in their stomachs into angels and gods, by whom he was
to be delivered.37 Considering this his folly, he cries out to God in a
feeling and humble acknowledgment of his own weakness: “What am I to myself
without thee, but my own guide falling headlong down a precipice.”38 He began to apply himself to judiciary astrology, but
soon abandoned that fallacious study, being informed that it consisted
altogether in tricks and deceit. When he was about six or seven and twenty
years of age, he wrote two or three books, De Pulchro et Apto; or, On what is
beautiful and decent or fit in things; which work is lost. He began, about that
time, to dislike the stories related by the Manichees concerning the system of
the world, the heavenly bodies, and the elements. “This kind of knowledge,”
said he, “is not essential to religion, but it is essential not to lie, and not
to boast of knowing what we know not.”

There was in
Africa at that time a Manichæan bishop, named Faustus, much celebrated by those
of his sect as a wonderful man, and perfectly skilled in all manner of
sciences. Austin had waited with great impatience for his coming to Carthage,
hoping he would satisfy all his doubts; but when he arrived, he found, by a
long conference, that he was a good speaker, but said no more than the rest of
the Manichees, only explained himself with greater grace and facility. Austin
wanted something more than words, and was too solid a wit to be contented with
mere form; and perceiving how little satisfaction he received from this great
doctor of the sect, he from that time disapproved it entirely, being then
twenty-nine years of age. Nevertheless, his prepossessions against the Catholic
faith hindered him from turning his inquiries on that side; so that, after he
despaired of discovering the truth in his own sect, not knowing where to find
any thing better, he determined still to remain content with what he had
stumbled upon, till he should fall upon something that should appear more
reasonable and satisfactory.39 The truly ingenious and pious Mr. Abraham Woodhead,
who, leaving Oxford, embraced the Catholic faith, wishes many now-a-days would
take warning to arm themselves against the same pernicious sloth; supposing
several now to labour under the like disease, who, as it were, purposely
deprive themselves of the grace of being enlightened with the truth, by not
inquiring after it, only from the false informers of their own party, to which,
by chance, or a false choice, they are first addicted.40

Austin, whilst
he remained in this fluctuation of mind, being disgusted at the disorderly
behaviour of the students at Carthage, resolved to go to Rome, where scholars
were kept under stricter discipline. This foreign journey he undertook without
his mother’s consent, and herein he praises the divine goodness, which by his
irregularities themselves, brought him to their cure; by afflicting his mother,
and refusing to hear her present request, by which she prayed that her son
might not sail, God made her redouble her earnestness and her tears, that he
might accomplish the main thing which she always requested, which was the
conversion of this son. At Rome he applied himself to the Manichees, and lodged
with one of that sect, merely on account of former acquaintance, and because he
was not yet resolved on any other religion. Soon after his arrival in that
city, he fell sick of a violent fever, and seemed reduced by it to the very
point of dying, and perishing for ever.41 “For whither had I gone,” says he, “if I had then
died, but into those flames and torments which I deserved?” But it pleased God
to raise him from this dangerous sickness, through the prayers of his mother,
which she never ceased to put forth for his conversion, though she was then
absent, and ignorant of his present danger. Whilst he professed rhetoric in
that great city, his school was frequented by the most famous wits of that age,
and none ever went from it without either being struck with admiration at his
learning and parts, which were rendered more amiable by the natural sweetness
of his temper; or being moved with envy at the honour he acquired in his
disputations; but finding the scholars there often unjust enough to change
frequently their masters, in order to cheat them of their salary for teaching,
he grew weary of the place; and it happening that deputies were sent from
Milan, where the emperor Valentinian the Younger kept his court, to Symmachus,
prefect of Rome, who was himself a great orator, requiring that he should send
thither some able master of rhetoric, Austin made suit to be the man. He was
strongly recommended by several persons of consideration, and having given
Symmachus proofs of his capacity, was chosen by him, and accordingly sent.

At Milan he was
received with great applause, and the most ingenious persons of that city were
soon convinced that he deserved the high opinion they had entertained of him.
The holy bishop, St. Ambrose, gave him particular marks of his respect. St.
Austin was very desirous of being acquainted with him, not as with a teacher of
the truth, which he thought impossible to be found among the Catholics, but
only as a person of great learning and reputation, and one who was obliging and
friendly to him. He frequently attended his sermons, not with any desire of
profiting by them, but to gratify his curiosity, and to inform himself whether
his eloquence answered the fame he had heard concerning him. He was very intent
upon his words, and found his discourse elegant and more learned than that of
Faustus, the Manichæan, yet not so pleasing in the delivery. Austin aimed only
at gratifying his ears, and despised the matter which the bishop treated: yet
his doctrine, like a distilling rain, insensibly made impressions on his heart,
and caused the seeds of virtue to spring forth therein. He began to think there
was good argument and reason in what he said, and that the Manichees unjustly
derided and cast contempt on the writings of the law and the prophets; but he
was not yet convinced of the goodness of the Catholic cause, and he continued
in suspense, withholding his heart from giving any assent, for fear of a
precipice; though he learned from St. Ambrose’s discourses that Catholics did
not hold what the Manichees charged them with.42 In the mean time, in the pursuit of honours, riches,
and a suitable marriage, he was often tormented with bitter anxieties, the
remembrance of which made his soul afterwards cleave faster and more sweetly to
God, who at length rescued him from that tenacious birdlime of death. Being to
pronounce, on the calends of January, in 385, a panegyric in praise of the
emperor, and of the newly elected consul, Bauto, who was to be present,43 he was very anxious for the success; and, passing
through the streets of Milan, he envied the happiness of a poor beggar whom he
saw there laughing and merry, and complained to his friends what torments our
own folly creates, only to purchase a tranquillity which perhaps we can never
attain; but which that poor man seemed to enjoy in the trifling alms he had
gathered that day. “It is true,” says he, “his joy is not real; but that which
my ambition sought after much less so.”

In the search of
truth he was still perplexed about the origin of evil, and suffered a secret
anguish in his soul to which only God was witness; for neither was his time
sufficient nor his tongue able to express the inward tumult of his soul.44 He also found great difficulty in conceiving God to
be a pure spirit, without any corporeal extension, having been accustomed to
the gross imagination of apprehending him as corporeal and extended through all
the empire of his goodness, according to the idea of the Manichees, which
differed entirely from that of the Anthropomorphites, who apprehended the
divine substance to resemble a human body. In correcting this false notion he
received great light by reading the works of Plato, and some other philosophers
of his sect, who speak of the Eternal Word, and of incorporeal substances, in a
manner which seemed to him clear and perspicuous.45 He became sensible of the necessity of admitting
incorporeal substances, though (our ideas of them being conveyed to us chiefly
through the inlets of our senses) we apprehend them imperfectly, and express
them by analogical terms drawn from corporeal images. He therefore acknowledged
that God must necessarily be an eternal, infinite, incomprehensible, and
unchangeable being, and a most pure and perfect spirit; also that there is
nothing in the creation absolutely evil.46 He seemed to hear the divine voice crying to him from
on high: “I am the meat of those that are grown up: grow thou up, and thou
shalt feed upon me: neither shalt thou convert me into thee, like thy corporeal
food; but thou shalt be changed into me.”47

He found
the writings of the Platonic philosophers bred in his soul pride, and not humility,
making him to have a mind to seem wise, and leaving him full of his punishment,
instead of teaching him to bewail his own misery. Finding nothing in them about
the great mystery of man’s redemption, or Christ’s incarnation, he with great
eagerness of mind betook himself to read the New Testament, especially the
writings of St. Paul, in which he then began to take great delight. Here he
found the testimonies of the Old Testament admirably illustrated, the glory of
heaven displayed, and the way clearly pointed out which leadeth us thither;
here he learned that which he had long felt, that he had a law in his members
warring against the law in his mind, and that nothing could deliver him from
this body of death but the grace of Jesus Christ. He perceived an infinite
difference between the doctrine of him who styled himself the last of the
apostles, and that of those proud philosophers who esteemed themselves the
greatest of men.48 Austin himself was now convinced of the truth and
excellency of that virtue which the divine law prescribes in the Catholic
church, but was still prejudiced with such an apprehension of insuperable
difficulties in the practice, as kept him from resolutely entering upon it.

Under his
difficulties he addressed himself to Simplician, a priest of Milan, whom Pope
Damasus had formerly sent from Rome to St. Ambrose to be his instructor and
tutor, who was then beloved by him as his father, and afterwards succeeded him
in the bishopric of Milan. This holy man was in a very advanced age, and had
served God with great piety from his youth. To him Austin gave an account of
the round of his wanderings and errors, and mentioned his reading certain books
of the Platonics, which had been translated into Latin by Victorinus, who had
formerly been professor of rhetoric in Rome, and died a Christian. Simplician
commended his choice of these books, and related to him how himself had been
instrumental in the conversion of this Victorinus; for that very learned old
man who taught most of the senators of Rome, and had the honour of a statue set
up in the Forum, embraced the faith of Christ. A fear of offending his friends,
the Roman senators, those proud worshippers of devils, from whom he apprehended
great storms of malice would fall upon him, made him defer his baptism for some
time; but being encouraged by Simplician he overcame that temptation, and
trampling the world under his feet, was instructed and baptized by him. When
Julian the Apostate forbade Christians to teach the sciences, Victorinus with
joy quitted his school. Austin was strongly touched by so generous an example,
and he envied the felicity of Victorinus more than he admired his fortitude;
but was still held captive under the slavery of his passions.

He mournfully
complains as follows: “I sighed and longed to be delivered, but was kept fast
bound, not with exterior chains or irons, but with my own iron will. The enemy
held my will, and of it he had made a chain, with which he had fettered me
fast; for, from a perverse will was created a wicked desire or lust, and the
serving this lust produced custom, and custom not resisted produced a kind of
necessity, with which as with certain links fastened one to another, I was kept
close shackled in this cruel slavery.49 I had no excuse as I pretended formerly when I
delayed to serve thee, because I had not yet certainly discovered thy truth; for
now I knew it, yet I was still fettered. The load of the world agreeably kept
me down, as it happens in sleep; and the desires by which I meditated to rise,
were but like the stragglings of such as would awake, who nevertheless are
still overcome with drowsiness, and fall back into their former slumber, whilst
a heavy laziness benumbs their limbs, though reason tells them it is wrong, and
that it is high time to arise. I had nothing now to reply to Thee when Thou
saidst to me: Arise thou that sleepest, and rise up from the dead, and
Christ will enlighten thee.50 I had nothing, I say, at all to reply, being now
convinced by thy faith, but certain lazy and drowsy words: Presently, by and
by, let me alone a little while longer; but this presently did not presently
come; these delays had no bounds, and this little while ran out to a
long time.” It happened in the mean time that one Pontitianus, an African, who
had an honourable employment in the emperor’s court, and was a very religious
man, came one day to pay a visit to Austin and Alipius; and finding a book of
St. Paul’s epistles lying on the table, took occasion to speak to them of the
life of St. Antony, and was surprised to find that his name had been to that
hour unknown to them. They were astonished to hear of miracles so well
attested, done so lately in the Catholic Church, and did not know before
Pontitianus mentioned it, that there was a monastery full of fervent servants
of God without the walls of that very city where they lived under the care of
St. Ambrose. Pontitianus, seeing them very attentive to him, discoursed long
upon this subject, and related that, whilst the court was at Triers, one
afternoon, when the emperor was entertained with public sports in the circus,
he and three others went out to walk in the gardens near the city, he with one
companion going one way, and the other two another; and that these two happened
to light upon a little cottage where dwelt certain servants of God poor in
spirit, of whom is the kingdom of God, and there they found a book in which
was written the life of St. Antony. This life one of them began to read, and
then to admire, and soon to be inflamed: and whilst he was yet reading, to
think of embracing the same kind of life; for he was one of those who were
called agents in the emperor’s service, whose business it was to collect taxes,
make provisions for the court, and execute particular commissions by order of
the emperor or the prefect of the prætorium. Then suddenly filled with holy
love and zeal, and a sober shame, and angry at himself, he cast his eyes upon
his friend, and said to him: “Tell me, I pray, with all the pains we take, what
doth our ambition aspire to? what is it we seek, and propose to ourselves? Can
we have any greater hopes in the court than to arrive at the friendship and
favour of the emperor? And when this is obtained, what is there in it that is
not brittle and full of dangers? Through how many dangers do we ascend to this
greater danger? And how long will it last? But behold, if I please, I become
this moment the friend and favourite of God, and such I remain for ever.”51 He turned his eyes again to the book, labouring in
the inward conflict of his mind, and in the throes of a new life. In the mean
time his heart was interiorly changed and entirely emptied, and disengaged from
the world; he often fetched deep sighs as he went on reading, till his soul being
wholly subdued by divine grace, he took a firm resolution that moment to enter
upon a better course. “I have now,” said he, “bid a final adieu to that our
former hope, and am fully resolved to have no other pursuit but that of serving
God. I begin from this very hour, in this very place. If you do not imitate my
retreat, do not obstruct my resolution.” The other answered, that he would
constantly adhere to his companion in so noble a warfare, for so high a reward.
By this time Pontitianus and the other who had walked with him, came to the
same place, and put them in mind of returning home; but upon hearing the
resolution they had taken, they congratulated with them, and took leave of
them, recommending themselves to their prayers. Both of them that remained in
the cottage, had been contracted to young ladies, who, as soon as they heard of
this, consecrated their virginity in like manner to God.

This example,
and the discourse of Pontitianus had a powerful influence on the mind of St.
Austin, and raised strong emotions in his breast, and he saw, as it were in a
glass, his own filthiness and deformity, which caused him to loathe and abhor
himself. In his former half desires of conversion, he had been accustomed to
beg of God the grace of continency, but so as to be at the same time in some
measure afraid of being heard too soon. “In the first dawning of my youth,”
says he, “I had begged of thee chastity, but by halves, miserable wretch that I
am: and I said, Give me chastity and continency, but not yet awhile; for
I was afraid lest thou shouldst hear me too soon, and presently heal me of the
disease of concupiscence, which I rather wished to have satiated than
extinguished.”52 Now he began to be ashamed and grieved to find his
will had been so weak and divided; and no sooner was Pontitianus departed, but
he applied himself to Alipius in these words: “What are we doing who thus
suffer the unlearned to start up, and seize heaven by force, whilst we with all
our knowledge remain behind cowardly and heartless, and wallow still in the
mire? What! because they have outstripped us, and are gone before, are we
ashamed to follow them? and is it not more shameful not even to follow them?” This
he spoke with an unusual and extraordinary tone of voice, and his countenance
was entirely altered; and he immediately got up, and went into the garden.
Alipius was astonished, not so much at his words, as at his pathetical manner
of expressing them, and at the violent commotion in which he saw him labouring
within his breast, and he following him step by step into the garden.

They sat down at
as great a distance as they could from the house, and there Austin groaned in
bitter indignation against himself. We cannot better describe the tempest and
furious agitation of his soul at that time than in his own words: “I now was
enraged at myself,” says he, “that I did not courageously at once resolve on
what my reason convinced me to be so good and necessary to be done. I would,
and I would not; I was, as it were, divided between myself and myself; I shook
my chain with which I was fettered, but could not be released from it. Thou, O
Lord, continuedst to press sore upon me in my interior, with a severe mercy,
redoubling the stripes of fear and shame lest I should leave off struggling,
and my chain should grow again, and bind me faster than ever. I said within
myself: ‘Come, let it now be done; let it be done this moment.’ Neither yet did
I do it quite, demurring still a while, to die unto death, and live unto life.
Trifles of trifles, and vanities, my old mistresses, hung about me, and pulling
me by the garment of the flesh, softly whispered to me, ‘Wilt thou then forsake
us? From this moment shall we be no more with thee for ever? Wilt thou never
hereafter taste those delights? From this moment shall this or that be no more
allowed thee for ever?’ Now I heard these suggestions not as boldly confronting
me, and opposing me to my face, but as muttering behind me, and secretly
pulling me that I should look back upon them; and they somewhat retarded me,
whilst I delayed to snatch myself away, and shake them off, and to spring
forward whither I was called; and the violence of evil custom said to me: ‘Dost
thou think that thou canst live without these or those delights?53 But the chaste dignity of continency enticed me to
come forward, and, to encourage me to fear nothing, stretched forth to receive
and embrace me her loving arms full of crowds of good examples. There were
great numbers of boys and girls, young men and maidens, grave widows and old
women virgins, persons of all ages; and in all these continency was the
fruitful mother of chaste delights from thee, O Lord, her heavenly bridegroom;
and she laughed at me with a kind of derision by way of drawing me on, as if
she had said: ‘And art not thou able to do what these men and these maidens do?54 Or are these able in themselves, and not in the Lord
their God? He gave me to them. Why standest thou upon thyself, and therefore
dost not stand? Throw thyself upon him, and fear nothing. He will receive and
will heal thee.’”

Austin was
exceedingly ashamed that he should still hear the whispers of those fooleries;
and the Holy Ghost, inviting him to chastity, seemed again to say to him: “Stop
thine ears against those unclean monsters. They tell thee of delights, but not as
the law of the Lord thy God.” This mighty tempest increasing every moment in
his soul, when deep consideration had gathered together all his misery before
his view, a very great shower of tears flowed from his eyes, and conceiving
solitude to be more fit for weeping he withdrew from Alipius, who beheld him
with great amazement. He removed to a great distance from his friend, that his
presence might not disturb him, and he threw himself down under a fig-tree, and
there gave free vent to a torrent of tears. He cried out to God to this
purpose: “How long, O Lord! wilt thou be angry for ever? Remember not my past
iniquities.” And perceiving himself still held back by them, he cast forth
miserable complaints, and reproached himself, saying: “How long? How long?
To-morrow, To-morrow! Why not now? Why does not this hour put an end to my
filthiness?” These complaints he uttered, and he wept with most bitter
contrition of heart, when on a sudden he heard, as it were, the voice of a
child, from a neighbouring house, which singing, frequently repeated these two
words in Latin, Tolle Lege; Tolle Lege. That is: “Take up, and read;
Take up, and read.”55 Presently his countenance being changed, he began to
consider whether in any kind of play, children were wont to sing any such
words; nor could he call to mind that he had ever heard the like. Whereupon, he
rose up, suppressing the torrent of his tears, and he interpreted the voice to
be nothing less than a divine admonition, remembering that St. Anthony was
converted from the world to a life of retirement, by hearing an oracle of the
gospel read. Therefore he returned in haste to the place where Alipius was
sitting, for he had left there the book of St. Paul’s epistles. He took it up,
opened it, and read in silence the following words, on which he first cast his
eyes: Not in revelling and drunkenness; not in chamberings and impurities;
not in strifes and envy; but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not
provision for the flesh in its concupiscences.56 He would read no further, nor was there need; for at
the end of these lines, as it were, by a new gleam of confidence and security
streaming into his heart, all the darkness of his former hesitation was
dispelled. He shut the book, having put a mark upon the place, and with a calm
and serene countenance told Alipius what had passed in his soul. Alipius
desired to see the passage he had read, and found the next words to be: He
that is weak in faith, take unto you; which he applied to himself. Being of
virtuous inclinations, and a sweet disposition, he readily joined his friend in
his good resolution. They immediately went in, and told this good news to St.
Monica, who was transported with joy. She had followed her son into Italy, and
came to him at Milan soon after he had abandoned the Manichean heresy and
before he embraced the Catholic faith, for which happiness she continued still to
pray, and for his perfect conversion from vice and irregularities till she saw
both accomplished.

He formerly
thought, under the tyranny of evil habits, “that without sensual pleasures life
itself would seem to him no life but a pain.”57 And when he became a Catholic and first entertained
thoughts of entering upon a virtuous course, he designed to take a wife,
thinking it impossible for him otherwise to overcome the passion of lust.
Alipius, who had never dragged the chain of that passion, wondered at his
slavery; and from wondering was once in danger of desiring to make a trial, and
to be drawn towards the same slavery; but the divine mercy preserved him. St.
Monica had provided a suitable match for her son, and the choice was extremely
agreeable to him; but, when his heart was entirely converted to God, he
resolved to embrace a state of perfect continency, and found by experience the
truth of that maxim of Seneca:58 “It is not because things are difficult that we dare
not aim at them; but they appear difficult because we have not courage to
undertake them;” and that of two other heathens:59 “Who sets about, hath half performed the deed.” Our
illustrious convert, pouring forth his heart in humble thanksgiving and holy
jubilation before God, who had mercifully broken the chains of his slavery,
cried out: “How sweet on a sudden was it become to me to be without the sweets
of those toys! and what I was before so much afraid to lose, I now cast from me
with joy; for thou hast expelled them from me who art the true and sovereign
sweetness; thou expelledst them, and camest in thyself instead of them, sweeter
than any pleasure whatever,60 but not to flesh and blood; brighter than any light
whatever, but more interior than any secret; higher than any dignity whatever;
but not to those who are high in their own conceit. Now was my mind free from
the gnawing cares of the ambition of honour, of the acquisition of riches, and
of weltering in pleasures; and my infant tongue began to lisp to thee, my Lord
God, my true honour, my riches, and my salvation.” In the process of this
saint’s wonderful conversion we cannot but admire the power of divine grace,
that no one may despair; the victory indeed over evil habits is not purchased
without much sorrow, pain, and contradiction to corrupt nature; yet let the
sinner take courage, this conflict will at length be converted into happy
liberty and joy; but let no sinner attempt so great a work with faint
endeavours. It must cost many tears and a kind of martyrdom. How watchful and
strenuous ought every one to be against the first spark of vice, which, if
admitted, soon grows a devouring flame, and a dreadful tyranny. This company,
this fond affection, this secret envy appears light at first, but nothing is so
rapid or so violent as the progress of vice.

The conversion
of St. Austin happened in the year 386, the thirty-second of his age, in the
month of August or September. At the same time he determined to quit his school
and profession of teaching rhetoric; but deferred the execution of this
resolution three weeks, till the vacation, which was in the time of the
vintage. Then he retired to a country house at Cassiacum, near Milan, which his
friend Verecundus (a professor of grammar in that city, who was then a heathen,
but was baptized soon after) yielded to him and his friends; for he was
accompanied in his retreat by his mother, St. Monica, his brother, Navigius,
his son, Adeodatus, St. Alipius, his chief confident, Tregetius and Licentius,
two of his scholars, and his cousins, Lastidianus and Rusticus. Here he wholly
employed himself in prayer and study, which exercises he made admirably
conducive to each other; for his study was a kind of prayer by the devotion of
his mind therein. Here he strenuously laboured, by the practice of austere
penance, by the strictest watchfulness over his heart and senses, and by most
fervent and humble prayer, to subdue his passions, to purify his affections, to
disengage them perfectly from the inordinate love of creatures, and to prepare
himself for the grace of leading a new life in Christ, and becoming in him a
new creature. He wept over the wounds and spiritual miseries of his soul, and
he cried out with the greatest earnestness to his Saviour, begging him to
stretch forth his merciful and omnipotent hand, and heal him. Against his
domestic enemy he had recourse to God, praying: “My whole hope is in nothing
else but in thy exceeding great mercy, O Lord, my God. Thou commandest me
continency. Give me what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt.62I know that no man can be continent, unless God
give it.”63 He particularly prayed for purity of heart, and the
most perfect divine love, confessing that he ought to devote to the love of God
his whole strength and all his powers every moment of his life; he desired to
redouble his earnestness in it, to repair, had it been possible, the precious
time he had already lost. “Too late,” said he, “have I loved thee, O beauty so
ancient, and so new! too late I have loved thee. Thou wast with me, and I was
not with thee. Thou hast called, thou hast cried out, and hast pierced my
deafness. Thou hast touched me, and I am all inflamed with the desire of thy
embraces.64 He loveth thee less, who loveth anything else with
thee, which he loveth not for thee. O love, which always burnest, and art never
extinguished! true charity, my God, set me all on fire.”65

This ardent
lover of God, after his conversion, fulfilled the character of the true
penitent in loving God so much the more fervently as more had been forgiven
him, and as the divine mercy had raised him from greater miseries; on which
account he is usually represented by painters with the symbol of a flaming
heart. The foundation of this divine charity and of all other perfect virtues
he laid in the most profound humility, the most sincere sentiments of which
virtue his writings breathe. In the tenth book of his Confessions he mentions
that he made it his principal care and study to watch against the snares of
pride and vain-glory, which there is danger of a man’s seeking in the very
contempt of vain-glory itself; he also laboured vigorously to restrain under
the strictest government his tongue, his eyes, ears, and his other senses,
especially that of the taste. Of this last he writes:66 “Drunkenness is far from me; thou wilt grant in thy
mercy that it never approach me; but gluttony67 sometimes steals upon thy servant: thou wilt have
mercy that it may be removed from me. A soldier of the heavenly camp said: I
can do all things in him that strengthened me.68 Strengthen thou me, that I also may be able. I have
heard another praying: Take thou from me the concupiscences of the belly.69 Who is he, O Lord, that is not sometimes carried a
little out of the bounds of necessity? Whoever he be, he is great, let him
magnify thy name; but I am not such a one, because I am a sinful man.” For this
he earnestly implores the healing mercy of Christ. This saint had learned the
maxim of the gospel and of St. Paul, earnestly inculcated by St. John Climacus,
St. Isidore,70 and all masters of a spiritual life, that all carnal
passions are to be cut off, and the soul prepared to receive the impression of
heavenly affections, by great abstinence and sobriety; for, “as a spring of
water cut into many streams diffuses itself over a whole garden, and clothes
every bed with green herbs, so if the appetite of gluttony spread itself
through the veins of the heart, it will sow over it a thick grove of many
lusts, and make the soul a dwelling-place of wild beasts,” says St. Basil.71 St. Austin had contracted in the world a pernicious
habit of swearing. After his conversion, exhorting others to refrain from that
horrible crime, he set before them his own example, in what manner he had
overcome an execrable habit of that vice. “We also were formerly engaged,” says
he, “in that most base and criminal custom: we once swore; but from the time
that we began to serve God, and understood the heinous evil of that sin, we
were seized with vehement fear, and by fear we restrained that inveterate
custom. You say you do it by habit; but above all things watch over yourselves
that you may never swear. A more inveterate custom requires the greater
attention. The tongue is a slippery member, and is easily moved. Be then the
more watchful to curb it. If you refrain to-day, you will find it more easy to
refrain to-morrow. I speak from experience. If your victory be not complete
to-morrow, it will at least be more easy by the custom of the former day. The
mischief dies in three days.72 And we shall rejoice in our great fruit, and in our
deliverance from such an evil.” In another sermon he says, “I know it is
difficult to break your habit; it is what I found myself; but by fearing God we
broke our custom of swearing. When I read his law, I was struck with fear, I
strove against my custom, I invoked God my helper, and he afforded me his
succour not to swear. Now nothing is more easy to me than not to swear.”73

St. Austin, in
this retirement, usually after morning prayers, took a walk out with his
friends, w hilst St. Monica took care of the housekeeping, though she had a
great share in their domestic literary conferences.74 In them it was his main design to raise by degrees
the thoughts of his friends in all their studies from sensible to spiritual
things. How careful he was to teach them in all things to die to themselves,
appears from the following instance: In a disputation, Trigetius advanced
something that did him no honour, and he desired that it might not be committed
to writing. Licentius, his antagonist, insisted that it ought to be recorded as
a monument of his victory. St. Austin burst into a flood of tears to see them
still enslaved to a petty passion of vanity, and reproved them for their fault,
praying that God would heal this wound of their hearts. Whereupon the two
youths entreated that the whole contest should be left on record, each desiring
this for the sake of his own confusion.75 St. Austin testifies, that the love of riches or
honours seemed then quite extinguished in his breast: that he was never tempted
to desire any food which he had interdicted himself, but feared intemperance
sometimes in what he ate: that he was determined to shun above all things the
company of women: nevertheless he still felt temptations to that shameful
passion, to which he had been so long enslaved; but as often as they began to
molest him, he was covered with extreme confusion at himself, shed abundance of
tears, and cast himself earnestly into the arms of God, begging Him to heal
him.76

While he was
employing himself in his solitude in the exercises of holy penance and prayer,
God, as he tells us, “by his grace brought down the pride of his spirit, and
laid low the lofty mountains of his vain thoughts, by bringing him, daily to a
greater sense of that misery and bondage from which he was delivered.” He read
the psalms of David with wonderful devotion, and the words contained in them
were like fiery darts, which first gave healthful wounds to his soul, and then
communicated to it a divine sweetness, and a healing virtue. By these
affectionate words he was influenced with the divine love, and he burned with a
desire of reciting them if he could, all the world over, to abate the swelling
pride of mankind. He was particularly affected with the fourth psalm Cum
Invocarem, of which he has given us a very pious paraphrase in his
Confessions; and he could not but censure the Manichees as blind and miserable,
who deprived themselves of the advantages of those divine hymns. Deplorable, in
like manner, is the misfortune of those who repeat these moving acts of
adoration, love, thanksgiving, and praise, without the least attention to God,
and who often have in their hearts sentiments quite opposite to those they have
in their mouths: whose prayers are hypocrisy—whose promises to God are false
and treacherous—whose affections are all pride and presumption, whilst in words
they make protestations of humility and contrition. The divine maledictions
against the lovers of vanity and iniquity which they recite, fall upon their
own heads: pretending to pray they rather mock God, because they have not the
interior spirit of prayer. St. Austin being penetrated with compunction and
love, found these divine hymns sweet with heavenly honey, and discovered in
every word a sacred light; in reading them he was all on fire, and found not
what to do to cure those who were spiritually deaf and dead, one of whom he had
been; like the psalmist he pined away with zeal, earnestly desiring to see
those who are enemies of their own souls, and of the divine truth, open their
eyes and their hearts to behold its pure light, and to taste its incomparable
sweetness. About this time he happened one day to be violently afflicted with
the tooth-ache, which hourly increased, and grew so insupportable that he was
not able to speak; whereupon, by writing in wax, he desired his friends there
present to join in prayer for him to the God of all manner of health, spiritual
and corporal. He knelt down to prayer with them; and as soon as they began to
make their humble addresses to God, the pain wonderfully ceased. He was much
amazed at this extraordinary manifestation of the divine power and goodness,
and greatly confirmed in his hope that God, whose beck all things obey, and who
is able at once to raise us from the deepest misery, would wash away the guilt
of all his sins in the laver of baptism, in which he was shortly to be
immersed.77

The time being
come when St. Austin was to enter his name among the Competentes, in order to
prepare himself for baptism, he came to Milan in the beginning of Lent in 387.
He certainly was not behind-hand in fervour to St. Alipius, who, as our saint
tells us, disposed himself to receive this sacrament with extraordinary
devotion, and subdued his body with great resolution, walking barefoot during
winter, which is very cold in that part of Italy near the Alps, especially if
we compare it to Africa.78 St. Austin was baptised by St. Ambrose on Easter-eve
in 387, together with Alipius and his son Adeodatus, who was about fifteen
years of age. Our saint had no sooner received the sacrament of regeneration
but he found himself freed from all anxiety concerning his past life. Nor was
he ever satiated with the wonderful sweetness he enjoyed in considering the
depth of the divine counsels concerning the salvation of man. He was much
moved, and wept exceedingly in hearing the psalms and sacred hymns sung in the
churches,79 and God sometimes admitted him into a very uncommon
affection of devotion and communicated to him much interior spiritual
sweetness.80 He was at Milan when the relics of SS. Gervasius and
Protasius were discovered, and was witness to certain miracles that were
wrought on persons touching them.81 Soon after this, desiring to devote himself entirely
to the divine service in a life of solitude, he resolved to return into Africa.
Accordingly he went, on his way thither, from Milan to Rome, together with his
mother and several of his friends, where they continued from the month of April
to the September following. Going thence to Ostia with an intention to embark
there, he lost St. Monica, who died in that seaport before the 13th of November
in 387.

Upon this
accident Austin went back to Rome, and staid there till the following year.82 He landed at Carthage about September in 388, and
there lodged for some time in the house of a virtuous lawyer, named Innocent,
and was witness to his miraculous cure of a dangerous fistula, whilst the best
surgeons of Carthage and Alexandria were preparing to perform a dangerous
incision; a sinus which was deeper than the rest of the sore having escaped
several operations which he had already undergone. The patient prayed with many
tears that God would mercifully preserve him from this danger, and Saturninus,
bishop of Uzalis, Aurelius, who was afterward bishop of Carthage, and several
other pious clergymen who often visited him during his illness, and were then
present, falling on their knees, joined him in his devout prayer. St. Austin was
one of the company, and relates how, the physicians coming the next day, he who
was to perform the operation took off the bandages, and to the astonishment of
all who had seen the wound before, found it entirely healed, and covered with a
very firm scar.83 St. Austin made a very short stay at Carthage, making
all possible haste to retire to his house in the country, with certain devout
friends. There he lived almost three years entirely disengaged from all
temporal concerns, serving God in fasting, prayer, good works, meditating upon
his law day and night, and instructing others by his discourses and books.84 He settled his paternal estate on the church of
Tagaste, only on condition that the bishop should furnish him a yearly stipend
out of it for his and his son’s maintenance among their religious brethren. All
things were in common in their house, and were distributed according to every
one’s necessities, no one among them having the least thing at his own
disposal. St. Austin reserved nothing which he could call his own, having
alienated the very house in which he lived. The religious Order of the hermits
of St. Austin dates its foundation from this epoch, in 388.85

When St. Austin
was ordained priest, and removed to Hippo, many of his religious brethren
followed him, thither, and with the assistance of his bishop, Valerius, he
founded there a new monastery, the monks of which St. Paulinus saluted when he
wrote to our saint in 394. Out of it came forth nine eminent bishops, who by
their learning, and the sanctity of their manners, were so many bright
ornaments of the church of Africa, namely St. Alipius of Tagasté, St. Evodius
of Uzalis, St. Possidius of Calama, Profuturis and Fortunatus of Cirtha,
Severus of Milevis, Urbanis of Sicca, Boniface, and Peregrinus.

St. Austin
instituted a nunnery of his Order, after he was promoted to the episcopal
dignity; and his sister who renounced the world in her widowhood, was chosen
the first abbess. After her death, Felicitas, the oldest amongst the nuns, was
pitched upon to succeed her; but some demanding another person for their
superior, a division happened among them, which St. Austin stifled in its
birth, by two letters addressed to Felicitas, Rusticus, (the priest who
assisted the community,) and all the nuns,86 whom he strongly exhorted to union, perfect
regularity, fasting, public prayer, strict religious poverty, and ready
obedience to the abbess, and to the priest. In the second letter,87 he laid down a regular body of monastic rules, which
is adopted also by the men who regard him as the founder of their Orders, both
the Hermits and the Regular Canons, though each have added to it many
particular constitutions. That it was received also by other religious men soon
after the death of St. Austin, appears by the rule of Tarnate, and by that of
St. Cæsarius, in both which it is inserted, and by a manuscript copy at Corbie,
above a thousand years old. The holy founder lays down the strictest rules of
poverty, obedience, and modesty; he orders that no one ever steadfastly fix her
eyes upon another, even of the same sex, this being a mark of immodesty and
impudence; and he will have this fault to be always severely chastised, though
with more mildness, when the person guilty is her own voluntary accuser. He
recommends, above all things, perfect humility; “for,” as he says, “pride lies
in wait about our good works, to destroy them; and what does it avail to give
our riches to the poor, and become poor ourselves, if the miserable soul
becomes prouder by contemning wealth, than she was before by possessing it?”

During the
saint’s retirement, his ingenious son Adeodatus, in the fervour of the
sacrifice he had made of himself to God, passed to a better life. St. Austin
applied himself to pious meditation, and the study of the sacred writings.
Though in his youth, whilst his ears could only bear the Ciceronian purity and
elegance of the Latin tongue, and his mind was captivated and led away by the
world and error, he was alienated from reading the holy Scriptures by a seeming
meanness of the style; yet when he began to be more conversant in them, and his
judgment was riper, he confessed his mistake. He acknowledges, in his books, Of
the Christian Doctrine, that the prophets, and St. Paul, surpass in deep sense
every thing that is sublime in the heathen orators, that this apostle is most
powerfully persuasive, and that the torrent of his eloquence must be perceived
by the most unattentive reader. He observes this difference between him and the
greatest profane orators, that they studied the ornaments of eloquence, whereas
his wisdom never sought after them, but they offered themselves, and naturally
followed his wisdom. Where he rejects worldly oratory, and declares, that his
preaching is not founded upon the persuasive language of human wisdom and
learning,88 this he does with a noble simplicity, in which there
is a more true sublime than in the highest strokes of art.89

St. Austin had
enjoyed his solitude near Tagasté almost three years, when a person of consideration
and probity, one of the emperor’s agents at Hippo Regius, a maritime town not
far from Tagasté, desired very much to converse with him at leisure about the
state of his soul. The saint carefully avoided going to any cities in which the
sees were vacant, for fear of being chosen to the episcopal dignity; but there
being then a bishop at Hippo, he went thither on this occasion without
suspecting any danger. Valerius, bishop of that city, had mentioned to his
people the necessity of ordaining a priest for the service of his church. One
day, when St. Austin had come into the church, they laid hands on him, and
presented him to Valerius, desiring, with great earnestness and loud cries,
that he might be forthwith ordained priest. St. Austin burst into tears,
considering the great dangers that threatened him in that charge; but was
obliged in the end to acquiesce, and was ordained priest about the end of the
year 390. The disorders of his youth would have been a perpetual
disqualification or irregularity, had they happened after his baptism; but,
from that time, he was become a new man, and was then more conspicuous for his
piety than for his great learning. Our new priest being recovered from his
surprise, employed his friends to beg of Valerius some respite, in order to
prepare himself in solitude for the exercise of his charge. He made the same
request himself, by an excellent letter, which tacitly condemns the presumption
and rashness of those who, without a holy dread, intrude themselves into the
ministry. He puts his bishop in mind, that “There is nothing in the world more
easy or agreeable, than the office of a bishop, priest, or deacon, if it be
performed in a slight, careless, and complying manner; but nothing is more
miserable in itself, or more criminal and unjust in the sight of God. On the
other side, nothing in this life is more difficult, laborious, or dangerous
than this office; but nothing more blessed in the sight of God, if it be
discharged in the manner our Great Leader commandeth.” He says, that though he
was formerly persuaded of this truth, he now felt it much more than he had
imagined at a distance, and he feared that the Lord had called him into a
tempestuous sea to correct him, and to chastise his sins.90 “O my father Valerius,” said he, “do you command me
then to perish? Where is your charity? Do you love me? Do you love your church?
I am sure you love both me and your church. Many things are wanting to me for
the discharge of this employment, which are not to be attained, but as our Lord
directs us, by asking, seeking, and knocking; that is, by praying, reading, and
weeping.” Valerius seems to have granted him this respite till the following
Easter; for his first sermons coincide with that time. This prelate, who was a
Grecian, and had, moreover, an impediment in speaking, appointed St. Austin to
preach to the people in his own presence, as was customary for bishops to do in
the East, but, till that time, was unusual in the West. However, Valerius
continued to preach sometimes himself. Austin desiring to live still in a
monastery, Valerius gave him his own gardens, which were contiguous to the
church, where the citizens built him a house for his monks. This is not to be
confounded with the regular community of clerks, which, after he was bishop, he
established in his episcopal palace. Knowing that the instruction of the flock
was the principal duty of the pastoral charge, he from that time never
interrupted the course of his sermons till his death. We have near four hundred
extant, though several were not wrote by him, but copied by others, as he
delivered them.91 They are not regular orations, composed of all their
parts; but familiar discourses, spoken without much preparation. In them he
barely proposes the truth with agreeable expressions, and impresses it with
some smart thoughts. This kind of eloquence is much inferior to that of the
Greek fathers of the same age; but it agreed with the genius of his hearers,
who received such discourses with great acclamations and applause, and were
frequently moved by them to tears.92

St. Austin
perfectly understood all the essential rules of eloquence. Instructing sacred
orators, he tells us,93 that a discourse must be simple and natural; that art
must not appear in it, and that, if it be too fine and elaborate, it puts the
hearers upon their guard. He speaks very well of the necessity of being plain
and familiar, though every thing that is said should have a suitable dignity,
especially when religion is the subject. He distinguishes three kinds of
speaking: submissively, in an humble, familiar way; mildly, in an
engaging, soft, insinuating manner, to make people love the truth; and, nobly,
in a lofty, vehement strain, when we would captivate men, and rescue them from
the dominion of their passions.94 This sublime kind he would have rather full of the
most pathetic emotions, than florid or adorned with embellishments of speech.
But a speaker who follows the impulse of his thoughts, studies no beauties of
elocution, though he naturally uses such as rise from the subject itself.95 Though the Latin tongue, in his age, was not of the
Augustan standard, all impartial judges must allow that he had a great talent
for persuasion. He writes with infinite penetration, is full of noble notions
and sentiments, and expresses himself in a pathetic insinuating manner. He knew
the heart of man entirely well, and reasoned generally with great force. He
indeed often, in his moral discourses, takes passages of the scripture in an
allegorical sense, which is always arbitrary, and rather serves for
illustration than for proof; in which he followed Origen, the Therapeuts, and
latter Jews. On this account the discourses of St. Chrysostom and the comments
of St. Jerom are, in general, more useful, as to the application of the sacred
writings, in the genuine literal sense.

St. Austin fell
into allegorical interpretations by example, and for the opportunity of
introducing such moral instructions as he judged most necessary for his people.
As for certain fashionable defects of eloquence in his time, this great man was
sensible of them; but, having higher views than the common rules of rhetoric,
he conformed himself to the prevailing taste of the age he lived in, that he
might the better insinuate the truths of religion into the minds of the people,
by engaging them to hear the word of God with pleasure;96 and, in his discourses, though popular, he is always
sublime. Fenelon mentions two instances to show the wonderful influence which
his pathetic eloquence had upon the minds of the people; an influence which
appears more wonderful than Cicero’s victory over the determined resolution and
indignation of Cæsar, and which the most florid discourses would never have
had, how much soever they had pleased the ears, and excited the applause and
admiration of his audience. The first is related by the saint himself in a
letter to his friend Alipius. The custom of celebrating the Agapæ, or
love-feasts, in the churches themselves, or in the cemeteries, upon the graves
of the martyrs or others, and this often with intemperance, was an abuse which
St. Austin, by a strenuous letter, exhorted Aurelius, archbishop of Carthage,
to procure to be extirpated by an order of a council.97 The people at Hippo would not be restrained from
these riotous rejoicings on festivals, which they pretended to justify by the
authority of their ancestors. St. Austin, who was then priest at Hippo, read to
them the most vehement threats and reproaches of the prophets. Then he
earnestly besought his hearers, by the ignominies and sorrows, by the cross, by
the blood of Christ, not to destroy themselves; to have pity on him who spoke
to them with so much affection, and to show some regard to their venerable old
bishop, who, out of tenderness for them, had commanded him to instruct them in
the truth. “I did not make them weep,” says he, “by first weeping over them;
but, while I preached, their tears prevented mine. I own that then I could not
restrain myself. After we had wept together, I began to entertain great hopes
of their amendment.”98 He had the satisfaction of seeing his people reformed
from that very day. The other example is still more remarkable, and the account
of it we have also from the saint.99 It was a barbarous custom of Cæsarea, in Mauritania,
(now called Tenez, a town subject to the Dey of Algiers,) for relations,
brothers, fathers, and sons, being divided into two parties, to fight publicly
with throwing stones at one another, for several days, at a certain time of the
year. This combat was a spectacle with which the people were extremely delighted,
and to draw them from it was judged a very difficult enterprise. “According to
the utmost of my abilities,” says St. Austin, “I used the utmost pathetic
expressions to extirpate such a cruel inveterate custom from their minds and
manners. I thought I had done nothing, while I only heard their acclamations,
and raised their delight and admiration. They were not persuaded, so long as
they could amuse themselves with giving applause to the discourse which they
heard. But their tears gave me some hopes, and declared that their minds were
changed. When I saw them weep, I believed this horrible custom would be
abolished. It is now eight years ago and upwards, and, by the grace of God,
they have been restrained from attempting any such practice.”

In the sermons
which fill the fifth tome of his works, this father inculcates chiefly
assiduous meditation on the last things; for “if the Lord’s day (or last
judgment) may be at some distance, is thy day (or death) afar off?”100 He enforces the necessity of doing penance; “For sin
must be punished either by the penitent sinner, or by God, his avenging Judge;101 and God, who has promised pardon to the penitent
sinner, has no where promised him who delays his conversion a to-morrow to do
penance in.”102 He frequently speaks of the obligation and advantages
of alms-deeds, and takes notice that the neglect of this precept is the cause
of the damnation of the greater number that perish, seeing Christ mentions only
this crime in the sentence both of the elect and the reprobate at the last day.103 He often mentions purgatory, and strongly recommends
prayer and sacrifices for the repose of the faithful departed.104 He speaks of holy images of St. Stephen,105 of Christ, and SS. Peter and Paul,106 of Abraham sacrificing his son;107 also of the respect due to the sign of the cross.108 He relates miracles wrought by it,109 and by the relics of martyrs.110 He often speaks of the honour due to the martyrs, as
in most of his sixty-nine sermons, On the Saints,111 but he remarks that we build altars, and offer
sacrifices to God alone, not to any martyrs. He addresses himself to St.
Cyprian,112 and other martyrs, to implore their intercession.
“All the martyrs,” says he, “who are with Christ intercede for us.” Their
prayers never cease, so long as we continue our sighs.113 St. Austin preached always in Latin, though among the
peasants of the country, in certain parts of his diocess, some understood only
the Punic tongue, whom he found it difficult to furnish with priests.114 To his sermons may also be reduced the greater part
of his comments on the holy scripture.115

St. Austin
preached constantly, sometimes every day, and sometimes twice on the same day.
He did not desist even when he was so weak as to be scarcely able to speak; but
he seemed to gather strength in preaching, and his ardour for the salvation of
souls made him forget the pains of sickness.116 Wherever he went, even in the diocesses of other
bishops, he was constantly required to feed the people with the bread of life,
and was always heard with great eagerness. His sermons were received with
universal applause, and according to the custom of that age, with clappings and
acclamations; but what alone gave him pleasure was the wonderful fruit which
they never failed to produce. Possidius mentions, among other instances of
extraordinary conversions, that the holy doctor, by making a sudden digression
from his subject to speak against the Manichæan heresy, upon one Firmus, a
famous rich and zealous patron of that sect, coming into the church, he gained
him upon the spot to Christ. After the sermon, Firmus came and cast himself at
the saint’s feet, and, bathed in tears, confessed his errors. He was afterwards
advanced to the priesthood.

Valerius,
finding himself sinking under the weight of his years and infirmities, and
fearing lest his church should be deprived of St. Austin by some other city
demanding him for their bishop, procured privately the consent of St. Aurelius,
archbishop of Carthage, and the approbation of his own people, and the
neighbouring prelates of his province of Numidia, to make him his coadjutor in
the bishopric. St. Austin strenuously opposed the project, but was compelled to
acquiesce in the will of heaven, and was consecrated in December, 395, having
in November entered into the forty-second year of his age. Valerius died the
year following.

St. Austin, in
this new dignity, was obliged to live in the episcopal house, both on account
of hospitality and for the exercise of his functions; but he engaged all the
priests, deacons, and subdeacons who lived with him, to renounce all property,
and to engage themselves to embrace the rule he established there; nor did he
admit any to holy orders who did not bind themselves to the same manner of
life. Herein he was imitated by several other bishops, and this was the
original of Regular Canons, in imitation of the apostles. Possidius tells us,
that the saint’s clothes and furniture were modest, but decent—not slovenly. No
silver was used in his house, except spoons. His dishes were of earth, wood, or
marble. He exercised hospitality, but his table was frugal; besides herbs and
pulse, some flesh was served up for strangers and the sick; nor was wine
wanting; but a quantity was regulated, which no guest was ever allowed to
exceed. At table he loved rather reading or literary conferences than secular
conversation, and, to warn his guests to shun detraction, he had the following
distich written upon his table:

If any fell into
that vice in his presence, he warned them of it, without distinction of
persons, and to show his dislike, suddenly rose, and withdrew into his chamber,
as Possidius had seen him frequently do. All his clerks who lived with him, ate
at the same table, and were clothed out of the common stock with himself. He
suffered no woman ever to converse in his house; not even his sister (who was superior
of a nunnery), nor his two nieces, who served God with her. He said, that
though no sinister suspicion could arise from the conversation of a sister or a
niece, yet they would be sometimes attended or visited by others of their sex.
He never would speak to any woman without having some of his clerks by, and
being in sight of them, though the business was never so secret. He committed
to overseers among his clergy the entire care of his temporals, and took their
accounts at the end of the year. To shun whatever might distract his mind, he
intrusted to the management of others the building of the hospitals or churches
which he erected. He never would receive for the poor any estates or presents
which he was importuned to accept when the donation seemed a prejudice to an
heir, or a disinheriting of a child. Nor could any age afford a greater example
of perfect disinterestedness. He was aware how easily avarice creeps
unperceived into the heart, and, like a moth, devours the best actions, no less
than vanity, if it taint them with its venemous blast; and he was continually
upon his guard against himself, lest either of these contagious evils should
infect his soul, and secretly entangle his affections. He employed whatever
could be spared of the revenues of his church in relieving the poor, as he had
before given his own patrimony for their relief. Possidius says that he
sometimes melted down part of the sacred vessels to redeem captives; in which
he was authorized by the example of St. Ambrose. In several of his letters and
sermons, mention is made of the custom he had prevailed upon his flock to
establish, of clothing all the poor of each parish once a year. He was not
afraid sometimes to contract considerable debts to procure comfort and
subsistence for the distressed; but his zeal and charity for the spiritual
welfare of others seemed to have no bounds. “I desire not to be saved without
you,” said he to his people,118 like another Moses or St. Paul. “What shall I desire?
what shall I say? why am I bishop? why am I in the world, only to live in Jesus
Christ? but to live in him with you. This is my passion, my honour, my glory,
my joy, and riches.”

There perhaps,
never was a man endowed by nature with a more affectionate and friendly soul
than the great St. Austin; but his tender and benevolent disposition was
exceedingly heightened and improved by the nobler supernatural motive, and most
powerful influence of holy charity and religion; of which his letters, and the
sequel of the history of his life will furnish many examples. He conversed
freely with infidels, and often invited them to his table;119 but generally refused to eat with Christians whose
conduct was publicly scandalous and disorderly, and was severe in subjecting
their crimes to canonical penance and to the censures of the church.120 He never wanted courage to oppose iniquity without
respect to persons, though he never forgot the rules of charity, meekness, and
good-breeding; witness the manner in which he reproved one Romulus for the
oppression of his poor vassals,121 and others. He complains that some sins had by custom
become so common, that though he condemned them, he durst not oppose the
torrent too violently for fear of doing much harm and no good, should he
attempt to extirpate them by excommunication; yet he trembled lest he should be
rendered culpable by remissness. Whereupon he cried out: “Wo to the sins of men
who only fear those crimes that are rare! But as to those that are common,
though so grievous that they shut the gates of heaven, through the force of
custom, we are constrained to tolerate them, and by tolerating fear we may
ourselves become guilty. May it please thy mercy, O Lord, that we may not be
condemned as not having done all that might be done to hinder them.”122 Prayer and advice were the means by which he sought
direction in such difficulties. Erasmus,123 considering his immense labours and indefatigable
zeal for the salvation of souls, says of him: “In the epistles and other
writings of this holy man, how manifestly do his piety, charity, meekness,
gentleness, kindness, love of concord, and zeal for the house of God appear!
What doth he not endeavour! How doth he labour! How doth he turn and change
himself into all shapes! If there appear the least hopes of drawing one pagan
to Christ, or one heretic to the church, how doth he condescend, how doth he,
as St. Paul saith, change his voice! How anxiously doth he intercede for
those wicked Circumcellions who deserved more than one death! Who ever
solicited more for his friends than he doth for his enemies? With what pangs
doth he bring forth all to Christ! How diligently doth he endeavour to save
all, and lose none! How grievously is he afflicted when any scandal ariseth!
Methinks I see the hen in the gospel, solicitous and anxious to gather and
cherish her chickens under her wings. In him alone, as in a mirror, may be seen
a perfect bishop, such a one as St. Paul describeth.” Causes being at that time
often carried by appeal from the secular courts to the bishops, St. Austin was
obliged sometimes to hear them the whole day fasting, which he did diligently,
affectionately, and patiently, making use of every means to reconcile the
parties amicably, and, whether they were Christians or infidels, to draw them
to God; but he complained of the distraction of this charge, which only charity
made supportable to him. He scarcely ever made any other visits than to
orphans, widows, the sick, and other distressed persons. He practised the three
maxims of St. Ambrose: first, never to make matches for any persons, lest they
should prove unhappy; secondly, never to persuade any to be soldiers; and,
thirdly, never to go to feasts in his own city, lest they should become
frequent, and he should be drawn into intemperance, and much loss of his
precious time.124

The epistles of
great men are generally interesting and curious both for illustrating their
history, and giving the genuine portraiture of their mind. Those of St. Austin
are particularly so, not only on these accounts, but also for the importance of
the subjects treated in them. Several are so many excellent and learned
treatises, and contain many admirable instructions for the practice of perfect
virtue. In them he mentions his own frequent indispositions, and the habitual
weakness of his constitution. In the thirty-eighth to Profuturus, (n. 397,) he
says he was confined to his bed under violent pain, but adds: “Though I suffer,
yet I am well, because I am as God would have me to be; for when we will not
what he wills, it is we that are in the fault, as he can neither do, nor permit
any thing but what is just.” In the thirty-sixth he answereth Casulanus about
the fast of Saturday, that the Church observes fasting on Wednesdays and
Fridays, because the Jews formed their conspiracy to put Christ to death on
Wednesday, and executed it on Friday. As to Saturday, he bids him follow the
custom of the place where he should be, according to the rule of St. Ambrose,
who told his mother: “When I am here (at Milan) I do not fast upon Saturdays:
when I am at Rome, I fast upon that day.” If the custom of the place be not
uniform, as in many churches in Africa, he advises him to do as the bishop of
the place should do or direct. He gives the same answer in his fifty-fourth to
Januarius. He says in the same that they do well who communicate daily,
provided it be done worthily, and with the humility of Zacheus when he received
Christ under his roof; but that they are also to be commended who sometimes
imitate the humble centurion, and set apart only Sundays and Saturdays, or
certain other days for communicating, in order to do it with greater devotion.
He lays down this principle, that a custom universally received in the church
must be looked upon as settled by the apostles or by general council, as the
annual celebrations of Easter, Pentecost, the Ascension, and Passion of Christ.
He says, that though the faithful at first communicated after supper, the
apostles afterwards ordained that out of reverence to so great a sacrament, all
should communicate fasting.

In the
fifty-fifth, to the same Januarius, he speaks of Lent and of other laws of the
church; but says, that certain rites and customs may be sometimes practised by
particulars which are only tolerated by the church, and may be sometimes such
as are better rejected than observed. It would be tedious to mention all the
important points of faith and discipline which he discusses in many of his
epistles; but devout persons will find nothing more agreeable than the perfect
maxims of Christian virtue which he inculcates. With what charity and
tenderness does he comfort Crysinus under temporal losses and calamities,
putting him in mind that God is our only good, and a good which can never fail
us, if we study truly to belong to him. If he suffer us to be afflicted in this
world it is only for our greater advantage.125 He explains the duties of a wife towards her husband
in his letter to Ecdicia,126 showing her that she was obliged to condescend and
conform herself to the humour of her morose husband not only in duties which
she essentially owed him, but also in things indifferent; that she ought not to
wear black clothes, seeing this gave him offence; and she might be humble in
mind in rich and gay dress (provided it were modest, and not such as the
apostle condemns) if he should insist upon her wearing such. He tells her she
ought, in all things reasonable, to agree with her husband as to the manner of
educating their son, and rather leave to him the chief care of it when he
required it. He severely chides her for having given goods and money to the
poor without his tacit consent, and obliges her to ask his pardon for it,
whether his unwillingness to allow her extraordinary charities proceeded
from a just and prudent care to provide for their son, or from any imperfect
motive. He exhorts her to gain him by meekness and charity, and to endeavour by
all means to reclaim him from his adulteries and other vices, especially by
praying for him: “Pray for him,” says the saint, “and from the bottom of your
heart. For tears are, as it were, the blood of a heart pierced with grief,”
&c. In like manner did he press upon husbands the respect, tender
affection, and just condescension which they owe to their wives; and so with
regard to other states.

The
documents he gave to Proba are more general; Proba Falconia, the widow of
Probus, who had been prefect of the prætorium and consul, in 371, withdrew into
Africa with her mother-in-law Juliana, and her daughter Demetrias, after Alaric
the Goth had plundered Rome. This holy widow being sensible that assiduous
prayer was her chief duty, desired St. Austin to send her some instructions in
writing about the manner how she ought to pray. The saint told her,127 she must learn to despise the world and its
pleasures, and sigh after the true happiness of divine grace and charity, which
is to be the principal object of all our prayers; that prayer must be made by
the earnest cry of the heart, and ought to be without ceasing, by the continued
burning desire of the soul seeking God; secondly, by having regular hours for
daily devotions; and, thirdly, by frequently raising our hearts to God during
all our actions with fervent aspirations, in imitation of the Egyptian monks.
He gave her an exposition of the Lord’s prayer, adding, that we are to
recommend to God not only our spiritual, but also our corporal necessities,
especially our health, that we may consecrate it to the divine service; for
without health all other temporal blessings avail us little; but this and other
temporal favours we must ask with resignation to the divine will, and with a
view to our spiritual advantage, lest, in punishment of our impatience, God
should give us them when they are pernicious to our souls, as he granted in
anger the flesh meat which the Jews in the wilderness asked with murmuring, and
at the same time visited them with the chastisement of their gluttony and
rebellion;128 whereas he refused to hear St. Paul because a trial
was more expedient for him.129

We have a
remarkable instance of St. Austin’s meekness and humility, in his controversy
with St. Jerom. The latter in his exposition of the epistle of St. Paul to the
Galatians, had explained the passage of his withstanding and blaming St. Peter
for withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles upon the arrival of the
Jewish converts,130 as if this had been a mere collusion between the
apostles to prevent the scandal of either party, and as if St. Paul did not
think St. Peter in any fault; because he allowed the observance of such legal
ceremonies at that time no less than St. Peter did. St. Austin, in 395, being
only priest, wrote to him against this exposition,131 showing, that though the apostles certainly agreed in
doctrine, yet in this action of St. Peter there was an indiscretion of
inadvertence which gave to the Gentile converts an occasion of scandal: and,
that if St. Paul did not blame him seriously he must have been guilty of an
officious lie, (which cannot be denied,) and by admitting such a fallacy any
passage in the scripture may be eluded in the like manner. This letter of St.
Austin happened, by the detention and death of the bearer, never to be
delivered. In 397 St. Austin, being then bishop, wrote to St. Jerom another
letter upon the same subject,132 which, by another accident, fell into the hands of
several persons in Italy, and was only sent to St. Jerom in Palestine
accidentally by one of them; at which St. Jerom took offence. Several other letters
passed between them on this affair,133 in which St. Austin shows that the apostles tolerated
for some time the ceremonies of the Jewish law, that they might be abrogated by
insensible degrees, and the synagogue buried with honour. He conjures St. Jerom
by the meekness of Christ to pardon him what he had offended him in, thankfully
submits himself to his reprehension and reproof, professing himself always
ready to be taught by him as his master, and corrected by him as his censor,
and desires to drop the inquiry, if it caused any breach of friendship, that
they might provide for their mutual salvation.134 “I entreat you again and again,” says he in another
letter, “to correct me confidently when you perceive me to stand in need of it;
for, though the office of a bishop be greater than that of a priest, yet in
many things is Austin inferior to Jerom.”135 The saint imputes the whole blame of this dispute to
himself, and his own negligence, because he had not added, that the toleration
of the legal rites only belonged to that time when the New Law began to be
promulgated.136 St. Jerom afterwards tacitly came over to St.
Austin’s opinion,137 which is confirmed by the general suffrage of
theologians. St. Austin grieved exceedingly to see the debate between him and
Ruffinus carried on with warmth, and conjured them with the greatest tenderness
imaginable to forbear invectives. “Could I meet you both together in any
place,” said he, “I would fall down at your feet, I would weep as long as I
were able, I would beseech as much as I love you, sometimes each for himself,
then each one for the other, and for many others, especially the weak for whom
Christ died.”138 This saint always dreaded the itch of vain glory in
literary contests, in which men love an opinion as he says, “Not because it is
true, but because it is their own, and they dispute, not for the truth, but for
the victory.” For his part, he was so much upon his guard to shun this rock,
that charity and humility were no where more visibly the governing principles
of his heart than on such occasions.

He trembled
always at the danger of secret complacency or vain glory, amidst the praises of
others. Thus he writes139 of this temptation in his Confessions: “We are daily
assaulted, O Lord, with these temptations; we are tempted without ceasing. The
tongues of men are as a furnace, in which we are daily tried. Thou knowest the
groans of my heart to Thee concerning this thing, and the floods of my eyes.
For I cannot easily discover the advances that I make towards being more clean
from this plague; and I very much dread my hidden sins, which are seen by thine
eyes, but not by mine. In other temptations I have some way by which I may try
myself; but none at all in this.” He complains, in a letter to Aurelius, archbishop
of Carthage, much more bitterly, how subtlely and imperceptibly this dangerous
vice insinuates itself into our souls, adding: “This I write to discover my
evils to you, that you may know in what things to pray to God for my
infirmities.” Sincere humility made him love, at every turn, to confess his
ignorance, and no less readily than candidly often to say: “I know it not;”140 an answer which does more honour to a true genius
than the greatest display of wit and learning; yet which costs so much to many,
that they often turn themselves into every shape rather than make this humble
acknowledgment, as the judicious Carthusian of Gaillon, F. Bonaventure,
remarks, speaking of the great and truly humble cardinal Bellarmin.141 He showed the greatest deference for the opinion of
others, and with unfeigned humility asked their advice in the paths of virtue,
and submitted himself and his works to their censure. Nothing gave him greater
confusion and mortification than the esteem of others, or their opinion of his
learning.142

From this sincere
humility St. Austin wrote his Confessions or praises of the divine mercy and
justice, about the year 397, not long after he was made bishop, when all the
world admired his sanctity, and he enjoyed the greatest honour and fame.
Possidius assures us that his main design in composing this work, was to study
his own humiliation, and to endeavour that no one should think of him above
that which he confessed himself to be. He therefore divulged all the sins of
his youth in the nine first books, and, in the tenth, published the many
imperfections to which he was still subject, humbly begging the intercession of
all Christians in his behalf. The saint himself, sending this book to Count
Darius, tells him,143 that, “the caresses of this world are more dangerous
than its persecutions. See what I am from this book: believe me who bear
testimony of myself, and regard not what others say of me. Praise with me the
goodness of God for the great mercy he hath shown in me, and pray for me, that
he will be pleased to finish what he hath begun in me, and that he never suffer
me to destroy myself.” St. Austin says in the second book of his Retractations,
that he compiled this work also to excite both himself and other men to praise
God, ever just, and ever good, and to raise up our understanding and affections
to Him. He has interspersed in it sublime and solid reflections on the
greatness and goodness of God, the vanity of the world, and the miseries of
sin, with most useful instructions for furthering the spiritual life in our
souls. Ever since this work has been written, it has been always read by pious
persons with delight and admiration. The saint having given an account of his
own actions in the ten first books, in the three last takes occasion to speak
of his love for the holy scriptures, and discusses several metaphysical
difficulties concerning time, and the creation of the world, or the first part
of the history of Genesis, against the Manichees.

Those heretics
were the first against whom he exerted his zeal, after his conversion from that
impious sect.144 When he was made priest at Hippo, he grieved to see
that great numbers in that city were infected with this pestilential heresy,
and he challenged Fortunatus, their priest, to a conference. This was accepted,
and it lasted two days; the dispute turned principally on the origin of evil,
which St. Austin proved to be derived from the free will of the creature; which
article of free will he demonstrates, because, without it, neither law nor
punishment could be just. Fortunatus, who, as Beausobre observes, was a very
learned able disputant, was so pressed as to have nothing to say but that he
would confer with the heads of his sect. Out of shame he withdrew from Hippo
very soon after, and his flight gave occasion to the conversion of a great part
of his deluded flock. Faustus, a native of Milevis, and bishop of the Manichees
in Africa, was the idol of his sect in that country, and by his eloquence, his
affected modesty, courtesy, and agreeable winning behaviour, perverted many. He
boasted that he had forsaken all things to obey the gospel, whereas he had been
master of nothing in the world to renounce, and led a voluptuous soft life,
sleeping on the finest feather beds, and living in plenty and delights.145 About the year 390, he published a book against the
Catholic faith, full of blasphemies against the Mosaic law and the prophets,
and against the mystery of the incarnation. Beausobre146 admires the elegance of his style, which is lively,
clear, concise, and smooth; superior in purity of the Latin tongue to most
productions of that age; and the author shows great address in palliating the
defects of his sect, and in giving an ingenious turn to his sophistical
arguments. St. Austin answered him in twenty-three books, about the year 400,
and triumphed over him not only by the strength of truth, and the goodness of
his cause, but also by an infinitely greater extent of learning. He has
preserved us the text of his adversary, which he confutes.

In 404 a
Manichee, of the number of the Elect, called Felix, came to Hippo, in order to
re-establish his sect in that city and country, which, by the zeal of St.
Austin, seemed no longer able to raise its head. He had been at Hippo from the
month of August, when he agreed to hold a public disputation with St. Austin in
the church in December. The conference of the first day is lost; but those of
the second and third, held on the 7th and 12th of December, are extant. Felix
was not so learned as Fortunatus, whom St. Austin had formerly confuted, as
Erasmus observes, but he had more cunning. The issue of this disputation was,
that Felix closed it by publicly professing upon the spot the Catholic faith,
and anathematizing Manes and his blasphemies.

The heresy of
the Priscillianists was akin to some of the Manichean principles, and at that
time infected several parts of Spain, where also the errors of the Origenists
prevailed among some. Paul Orosius, a Spanish priest, made a voyage into
Africa, in 415, to see St. Austin, whose great reputation had reached the most
remote countries where the Christian name was known. This learned priest
informed him, by a memorial, in what these heresies consisted, and requested of
him an antidote to preserve the minds of his countrymen against them. This gave
occasion to the saint’s work, Against the Priscillianists and Origenists, in
which he condemns the impious errors of those who taught the human soul to be
of a divine nature, and sent into the body in punishment of former
transgressions, till it be purified in this world; and he proves that it is
created by God, and that the torments of the devils and damned men are eternal.
Possidius relates that Pascentius, count of the emperor’s household, that is,
intendant or steward of the imperial demesnes in Africa, being an Arian,
insulted the Catholics on account of the simplicity of their faith, and
challenged St. Austin to a conference. When they met, he refused to suffer
notaries to take it down in writing; upon which St. Austin foretold that every
one would give an account of it according to his fancy. Pascentius insisted
upon St. Austin’s showing him the word “consubstantial” in scripture; the holy
bishop asked him to show in it the term “not-begotten,” which he used; and our
holy doctor demonstrated that it suffices if the sense be found there in
equivalent terms. Maximinus, an Arian bishop, accompanied Count Sigisvult, who
commanded the Gothic troops for Valentinian, against Count Boniface in Africa, and
at Hippo challenged St. Austin to a public disputation, which was held in 428,
and taken down in writing, as it is now extant.

The Pagans and
the Jews were no small object of our saint’s zeal. The latter he confuted by a
treatise in which he shows the Mosaic law was to have an end, and to be changed
into the new law. The neighbouring city of Madaura was full of idolators. St.
Austin gained their good will by rendering them some important public service,
and doing them good offices. Their grateful disposition towards him he improved
to their spiritual advantage, and induced him to embrace the faith of Christ,147 having obliged Longinian, their pontiff, to confess
that we must adore one only God, the incomprehensible Creator of all things,
and our sovereign good.148 When Rome was plundered by Alaric the Goth, in 410,
the Pagans renewed their blasphemies against the Christian religion, to which
they imputed the calamities of the empire. To answer their slanders, St. Austin
began his great work, Of the City of God, in 413, though he only finished it in
426. Several Tertullianists still subsisted at Carthage, whom St. Austin, by
his mildness and zeal re-united to the Catholic church, as he also did another
sect, called, from Abel the patriarch, Abelonians. Jovinian, the enemy of
virginity consecrated to God, had been condemned by Pope Siricius and the
council of Milan, and confuted by St. Jerom, in 392; nevertheless his disciples
secretly gave out that those who opposed him condemned the state of marriage.
St. Austin confuted this slander by his book, On the Advantage of Matrimony,149 in which he shows that state to be holy, that many
are engaged in it upon motives of virtue, and that several in that state
surpass many virgins in sanctity. He published, about the same time his book,
On Holy Virginity, against the error of that heresiarch, proving this state to
be in itself the more perfect, if it be embraced for the sake of God, and if it
be accompanied with humility, and according to its obligation, with a most
fervent consecration of the heart to the love of God. His treatise, On
Continency, was written a little before he was bishop, to show that this virtue
consists in subduing the passions, and that sins do not proceed from a
principle that is evil by nature in us, as the Manichees pretended. In the two
books, On Adulterous Marriages, the saint shows that a married person, after a
separation on account of adultery, cannot take another wife or husband, and
resolves some other difficulties concerning the indissolubility of marriage.
His treatise, On the Advantage of Widowhood, was written in 414, and addressed
to Juliana, the daughter-in-law of Proba. The saint commends very much the
state of holy widowhood though he allows second and third marriages lawful, and
gives her and her daughter Demetrias, who had embraced a state of virginity the
preceding year, useful instructions.

The sect which
then made most noise in Africa, and gave the greatest employment to the zeal of
this saint, was that of the Donatists. It has been related in the life of St.
Optatus in what manner it took its rise in 305, above forty years before the
birth of St. Austin. The first authors of it were condemned as schismatics by
Pope Melchiades, in a council at Rome, in 313, and by the great council of all
the West, at Arles, in 314. Having, in the beginning, violated the unity of the
church, they, by a usual consequence in all inveterate schisms, as St. Austin
observes,150 fell afterwards into several errors, by defending
which they became heretics. Their first heresy was, that the Catholic church
spread over the world, by holding communion with sinners, was denied, and had
ceased to be the church of Christ, this being confined within the limits of their
sect. Their second error was, that no sacraments can be validly conferred by
these that are not in the true church. Whence they re-baptized all other
sectaries, and all Catholics that came over to them. Constantine the Great
passed severe laws against them at Milan, in 316, and banished some of their
ringleaders. Valentinian I., Gratian, and Theodosius the Great published new
laws against them; and they were divided into so many different sects in
Mauritania and Numidia, that they themselves did not know their number.151 The chief among these were the Urbanists, who sprung
up in a corner of Numidia; and at Carthage the Claudianists, the Maximianists,
and the Primianists; for Primianus, who, in 391, had succeeded Parmenianus in
the schismatical see of Carthage, for receiving the Claudianists into
communion, was condemned by a party which raised Maximianus to that doubly
schismatical dignity; yet Primianus always kept possession at Carthage; though
Maximianus was acknowledged by a great number of the provinces. The Rogatists
in Mauritania Cæsariensis, were so called from Rogatus, the author of their
separation. Each of these sects believed that they alone had the true baptism,
and were the true church.152

The Donatists
were exceedingly numerous in Africa, and obstinate to a degree of madness. They
reckoned above five hundred bishops of their sect. At Hippo the number of
Catholics was very small, and the Donatists bore so uncontrollable a sway there
that, a little before St. Austin came thither, Faustinus, their bishop, had
forbidden any bread to be baked in that city for the use of Catholics, and was
obeyed, even by servants who lived in Catholic families. The holy doctor,
arriving whilst matters were in this situation, set himself to oppose the
reigning heresy, both in public and in private, in the churches and in houses,
by his words and writings.153 Possidius tells us that far the greater part of
Christians in Africa were at that time infected with the errors of the
Donatists, and they carried their fury to the greatest excesses, murdering many
Catholics, and committing all acts of violence.

By the learning
and indefatigable zeal of St. Austin, supported by the sanctity of his life,
the Catholics began to gain ground exceedingly; at which the Donatists were so
much exasperated, that some enthusiasts among them preached publicly, that to
kill him would be doing a thing of the greatest service to their religion, and
highly meritorious before God; and troops of Circumcellions made several
attempts to do it, when he made the visitation of his diocess. One day he only
escaped them by his guide having missed his way; for which preservation he gave
public thanks to God.154 The saint was obliged, in 405, to solicit Cecilian,
vicar of Africa in Numidia, to restrain the Donatists about Hippo from the
outrages which they perpetrated there.155 In the same year the Emperor Honorius published new
severe laws against them, condemning them to heavy fines, and other penalties.
St. Austin at first disapproved such a persecution, though he afterwards
changed his opinion, when he saw the sincere conversion of many, who being
moved by the terror of these laws, had, by examining the truth, opened their
eyes to discover and heartily embrace it; and by the exemplarity of their
lives, and the fervour with which they gave thanks to God for their conversion,
exceedingly edified the church.156 And he observes, that their open seditions and acts
of violence distinguished them from the Arians and other heretics, and required
several remedies. Nevertheless, he only employed the arms of mildness and charity
against them. He even interceded for, and obtained a remission of a fine or
mulct, to which Crispin, a Donatist bishop, had been condemned, not only for
heresy, but also for having formed a conspiracy against the life of Possidius,
bishop of Calama; and did the like for others.157 He earnestly exhorted the Catholics to labour for
their conversion, by fasting, sighing, and praying to God for them, and by
inviting them to the truth with tenderness and sincere charity, not with
contentious wrangling.158 In 407 Honorius commissioned lawyers, under the title
of Defensors of the Church, to prosecute the Donatists according to the laws.
This name was before in use, and is mentioned in the council of Carthage in
349, and in succeeding ages, to signify a person appointed, generally by the
bishop, to protect widows, orphans, and others from oppression.

The most
celebrated transaction that passed in Africa at that time, between the
Catholics and the Donatists, was a great conference held at Carthage. St.
Austin had, by frequent challenges, invited Proculcian, the Donatist bishop of
Hippo, and others of that sect, to a fair disputation before competent judges
upon the controverted points; but this they constantly declined, alleging his
superior eloquence. St. Aurelius of Carthage, St. Austin, and the rest of the
Catholic prelates, in a national council of all Africa, held at Carthage in
403, agreed to send to all the Donatist bishops in Africa a solemn challenge
for deputies of both parties to meet at an appointed time and place, in order
to discuss the articles which divided them in communion; but the Donatists answered
they could not meet to confer with the successors of traditors and sinners,
whose company would defile them; and their evasions put by the disputation
till, at the request of the Catholics, the Emperor Honorius compelled them by a
rescript, dated in 410, to meet within four months and hold a public conference
with the Catholics, in which he appointed the tribune Marcellinus to preside.
The Catholic bishops subscribed to this agreement at Carthage to the number of
270. Marcellinus ordered seven bishops to be chosen on each side for the
disputants, and four notaries on each side to take down the acts in writing,
with four bishops to superintend and observe them, and seven other bishops for
the council of the disputants; only these eighteen on each side were to be
present. However, the Donatists, at their request, were all allowed to appear
at the beginning of the conferences, but no more than eighteen Catholic
bishops, the rest spending this time in retirement, prayer, fasting, and
almsdeeds, to implore the divine blessing. The seven Catholic disputants were
Aurelius, Alipius, Austin, Vincentius, Fortunatus, Fortunatianus, and
Possidius. The Donatist disputants were Primianus of Carthage, Petilianus of
Cirtha, Emeritus of Algiers, Protasius, Montanus, Gaudentius, and Adeodatus of
Milevis. The tribune Marcellinus was attended by twenty officers. The
conference was opened on the 1st of June, 411, and was continued during three
days. The Donatists refusing to sit down in such company, disputed standing;
whereupon Marcellinus caused his seat to be taken away, and would also stand.
The questions both of right and of matters of fact were debated; the very
pieces produced by the Donatists justified Cecilian and his cause; and the
universality of the true church was demonstrated by St. Austin, who had the
principal share in this disputation, and bore away the glory of that triumphant
day, the fruit of which was the conversion of an incredible number of heretics.
Marcellinus pronounced sentence as to the matters of fact which had given rise
to the schism, declaring that Cecilianus had never been convicted of the crimes
laid to his charge; and that, had he been guilty, they could not have affected
the universal church; for no one is to be condemned for faults committed by
another. The report of all that had passed, having been made by Marcellinus to
the Emperor Honorius, to whom the Donatists had appealed from this sentence, he
enacted new laws against them, subjecting them to heavy fines, and ordering
their clergy to be banished out of Africa, and their churches restored to the
Catholics.

This conference
gave a mortal blow to the schism of the Donatists, who from that time returned
in crowds into the bosom of the Catholic church; many bishops being converted
with their whole flocks, as Possidius relates. Their bishops who renounced the
schism were confirmed in their dignities, as had been decreed in the council of
Carthage in 407. Yet some of these heretics remained immoveably fixed in their
errors and faction. Several of their circumcellions and clerks, having lain in
ambush near Hippo, had killed Restitutus, a Catholic priest, and had beaten out
the eyes and broke one of the fingers of another; and being apprehended they
confessed their crime before Marcellinus, whom the emperor had then honoured
with the dignity and office of count. St. Austin, fearing they would be
punished according to the rigour of the law, wrote to Marcellinus, entreating
him not to use that severity towards them which they had employed against
Catholics. “We neither impeached them,” said he, “nor persecuted them; and
should be sorry to have the sufferings of the servants of God punished by the
law of retaliation.”159 He begged him to have respect to that meekness which
the church professeth to exercise towards all men, and desired these criminals
might not be put to death or maimed, but only restrained from hurting others by
being confined in prison, or employed in some public works. He wrote to the
same purpose to Apringius, the proconsul, who was to be their judge, and was
brother to Marcellinus, telling him that the sufferings of Catholics ought to
serve as so many examples of patience, which we must not sully with the blood
of our enemies.160 Receiving no answer, he sent a second pressing letter
on this affair to Marcellinus.161 That count was a very virtuous and religious man, and
had for St. Austin the greatest veneration and regard; and the saint, than whom
there perhaps never was a more tender or a warmer friend, had for him an equal
affection and esteem. When the consul Heraclian, who had been proconsul of
Africa, rebelled in 413, and being vanquished by Count Marinus near Rome, fled
to Carthage, where he was killed, Marinus pursued him thither, and put many to
death on account of his conspiracy. The Donatists failed not to bring
Marcellinus and Apringius into suspicion as if they had favoured the rebels;
and at their instigation Marinus caused them to be imprisoned, and though St.
Austin went to Carthage, justified them before Marinus, and obtained his
promise that they should not suffer; that general afterwards, on a sudden,
commanded them both to be beheaded. St. Austin was much afflicted at this
barbarous execution, and ascribed the death of Marcellinus to the slanders of
the Donatists, who were exasperated at the sentence he had given against them;
he has left us a moving description of the patience and heroic sentiments of
charity and all other Christian virtues in which he found him in prison when he
went to comfort and assist him before his death, and bore ample testimony to
his innocence, inviolable chastity, integrity, patience, contempt of all
earthly things, holy zeal, and charity. He mentions that, visiting Marcellinus
in prison, and asking him whether he had ever offended God by impurity, or
committed any other sin for which he ought to do canonical penance, he, taking
hold of the bishop’s right hand, assured him “by those sacraments which that
hand brought him, that he had never been guilty of any such sin.”162 This passage shows, as Du Pin observes (p. 153), how
careful the pastors then were to visit prisoners, and when they seemed to be in
danger of being condemned, to prepare them for death by penance, absolution,
and the holy eucharist. St. Austin rejected all commerce with Marinus, and
exhorted others to testify their indignation against him in such a manner as
might oblige him to a penance proportionable to his crime. The Emperor Honorius
disgraced Marinus for this action, honoured Marcellinus as one who had been
unjustly put to death through the malice of the Donatists, and styled him “of
glorious memory.”163 In the Martyrologies he is ranked among the martyrs
on the 8th of April.

About the same
time, St. Demetrias consecrated her virginity to God in a religious state at
Carthage, in 413. She was daughter of Olibrius, who had been consul in 395, and
of Juliana, and granddaughter by the father of Proba. In the midst of the
delights of a great house, and surrounded with eunuchs and maids who served
her, she had from her tender years inured herself to austere fasting, mean
clothing, and lying often on the ground, covered only with sackcloth. This she
did so secretly, that only a few of her maids were conscious of it and most of
her pious practices. It was her desire to devote herself to God in a religious
state, and she besought her Saviour, with many tears, on her knees, to grant
her this happiness, and to move the hearts of her mother and grandmother to
consent to the same. An honourable marriage with a rich Roman nobleman was
agreed to by her friends, and the nuptial chamber was preparing, when she one
morning, encouraging herself by the example of St. Agnes, clothed in an
ordinary tunic and gown, having laid aside her ornaments and jewels, went and
threw herself at the feet of her grandmother Proba, but could express herself
only by her tears. Proba and Juliana were extremely surprised, but when they
understood her request, they raised her up, and pressing her tenderly in their
arms, with great joy approved her pious resolution. They did not lessen her
fortune, but bestowed that portion on the poor which they had designed for her
husband. Demetrias received the veil from the hands of the bishop of Carthage,
with the usual prayers and ceremonies.164 Several of her friends and slaves followed her
example. St. Austin’s exhortations, whilst he was at Carthage during the
conference, had very much contributed to confirm her in her good resolutions,
and Proba and Juliana both wrote to acquaint him of her being professed,
sending him at the same time a small present. Saint Austin returned them a letter
of congratulation and thanks.165 They wrote likewise to St. Jerom, and earnestly
prayed him to give their daughter some instructions for the conduct of her
life, which he did by a long epistle, in which he treated of the chief duties
of a Christian virgin, exhorting her particularly to work daily with her hands.166 Pelagius, who was then in Palestine, sent her also a
very long letter, which is extant,167 and is one of his first writings, in which he began
to discover the seeds of his heresy. SS. Austin and Alipius wrote a joint
letter to Juliana in 417, to caution her daughter against the poison artfully
concealed in the above-mentioned letter.168 Proba, Juliana, and Demetrias returned to Rome, where
this holy virgin flourished in the time of St. Leo.

Pelagius was by
birth a Briton, as he is called by St. Austin, St. Prosper, and Marius
Mercator; and was a monk of Bangor, in Wales, not in Ireland.169 He had a good genius, but was not solidly learned;
his style is barren, flat, and dry. He travelled into Italy, and lived a long
time at Rome, where he gained a reputation for virtue. Meeting with Rufinus,
the Syrian, a disciple of Theodorus, of Mopsuestia, who came to Rome about the
year 400, he learned from him the errors which he began from that time to
propagate, though at first privately, against the necessity of divine grace,170 but he was careful to dissemble them at first,
setting them forth by the mouths of his disciples to see in what manner they
would be received. His chief disciple was Celestius, a man nobly born, as
Marius Mercator testifies; bold, and of a subtle ready wit. He was a Scotsman,
and is called by St. Jerom “a fellow bloated with Scottish gruels.”171 He pleaded some time at the bar, but became
afterwards a monk. At Rome he joined Pelagius, and a little before that city
was taken, passed with him into Africa, in 409. Pelagius went soon into the
East, but left Celestius at Carthage, where he strove to be promoted to the
order of priesthood; but Paulinus, the deacon of Milan, who was then in Africa,
preferred against him an accusation of heresy to Aurelius, bishop of Carthage,
about the beginning of the year 412. Aurelius assembled a council at Carthage,
to which Paulinus presented two memorials, charging Celestius with holding the
following errors: That Adam would have been equally mortal, and have died,
though he had not sinned; that his sin was prejudicial to him alone, not to his
posterity; that children are now born in the same state in which they would
have been if Adam had never sinned, and that if they die without receiving
baptism, they obtain eternal life. Celestius was heard, and notwithstanding his
evasions, confessed enough to be convicted of obstinate heresy; so that he was
condemned, and deprived of the ecclesiastical communion. He appealed to the
apostolical see; but instead of pursuing his appeal he departed to Ephesus.

St. Austin was
not at this council; but from that time he began to oppose these errors in his
sermons and letters.172 But before the end of that year he was engaged by the
tribune Marcellinus to write his first treatises against them. This, however,
he did without naming the authors of that heresy, hoping by this mildness more
easily to gain them. He even praised Pelagius by name in a book which he wrote
against his errors, and says: “As I hear, he is a holy man, very much improved
in Christian virtue: a good man, and worthy of praise.”173 But after his condemnation he is accused by Orosius
and other fathers of loving banquets and the baths, and living in softness and
delights. This heresiarch made a long stay in Palestine. In 415 he was accused
of heresy before certain bishops assembled at Jerusalem, who determined to
write to the bishop of Rome for information in this affair, and to abide by his
answer; but, in December the same year, a council of fourteen bishops, among
whom was John of Jerusalem, was held at Diospolis or Lydda, in which Pelagius
was obliged to appear, and give an account of his faith, two Gaulish bishops,
who had been driven from their sees, Heros of Arles, and Lazarus of Aix, being
his accusers. Pelagius covered the propositions with which he was charged with
a gloss which made them seem excusable, and was discharged because he appeared
to be a Catholic; but his error was condemned by the council, and he himself
was obliged to abjure it. It is true, indeed, that he only did it in words; for
he never changed his opinion, and deceived the bishops.174 After this council he became very vain, and boasted
of the advantage he had gained in it; but durst not show the proceedings,
because people would have seen that he had been forced to disown his errors. He
was content to spread abroad a letter which he wrote to his acquaintance,
wherein he said that fourteen bishops had approved his opinion, namely, that a
man may live without sin, and may easily keep the divine commandments, if he
will; but he did not say, that he had added in the council these words, with
the grace of God; and he added in his letter the word easily, which
he dared not pronounce in the council, as St. Austin takes notice. The bishops
of Africa were too well acquainted with his artifices to be easily imposed
upon, and assembling two councils, one at Carthage, and the other at Milevis,
in 416, they wrote against him to Pope Innocent, who commending their pastoral
vigilance, in 417, declared Pelagius and Celestius deprived of the communion of
the church; for he saw the answers of the former in the council of Diospolis
were no way satisfactory, as appears from his and St. Austin’s letters upon
this affair. Pelagius wrote to the pope to justify himself, and Celestius, who
had got himself ordained priest at Ephesus, went to Rome in person, where
Zosimus had succeeded Innocent in the papal chair in March 417. Celestius
presented to him a confession of faith, wherein he was very explicit on the
first articles of the Creed, and professed that if in any letters he had
advanced anything in which he had been mistaken, he submitted it to his
judgment, and begged to be set right. Pope Zosimus had so much regard to his
pretended submission, that he wrote in his favour to the African bishops;
though he would not take off the excommunication which they had pronounced
against Celestius; but deferred passing sentence for two months. In the
meantime St. Aurelius assembled, in 418, a council at Carthage of two hundred
and fourteen bishops, which renewed the sentence of excommunication against
Celestius, and declared that they constantly adhered to the decree of Pope
Innocent.

Pope Zosimus
having received their letters of information condemned the Pelagians, and cited
Celestius to appear again; but the heretic fled secretly out of Rome, and
travelled into the East. Upon which Zosimus passed a solemn sentence of
excommunication upon Pelagius and Celestius, and sent it into Africa, and to
all the chief churches of the East. The Emperors Honorius and Theodosius made
an edict which they sent to the three prefects of the prætorium, to be
published through the whole empire, by which they banished Pelagius and
Celestius, and condemned to perpetual banishment and confiscation of estates,
all persons who should maintain their doctrine. Pelagius and Celestius after
this lurked privately in the East. In Italy, eighteen bishops refused to
subscribe to the letter and sentence of Zosimus, and were deprived of their
sees. The most learned and warmest stickler among these was Julianus, bishop of
Eclanum, in Campania, which see is now removed to Avellino. He afterwards
turned schoolmaster in Sicily; his tomb was discovered there in the ninth
century in a small village. His writings show him to have been one of the
vainest boasters of the human race, full of Pelagian pride, and a contempt of
all other men, but of quick parts, and abundance of wit. It is sufficiently
understood from what has been said above, that the chief errors of the Palegian
heresy regard original sin and divine grace. The former they denied, and the
necessity of the latter; they also affirmed that a man could live exempt from
all sin, without grace, and they extolled the virtues of the pagans. St. Austin
maintained the contrary truths of the Catholic faith with invincible force; and
he proved from clear passages in holy scripture, that all men are sinners, and
bound to pray for the pardon of sins; for without an extraordinary grace, such
as was given to the Virgin Mary, saints offend by small transgressions of a
faulty inadvertence, against which they watch, and for which they live in
constant compunction. He also proves that the virtues of heathens are often
counterfeit, namely, when they are founded in, or infected with motives of
vain-glory or other passions; they are true moral virtues, and may deserve some
temporal recompence, if they spring purely from principles of moral honesty:
but no virtue can be meritorious of eternal life, which is not animated by the
principle of supernatural life (that is, divine charity), and which is not
produced by a supernatural grace. He teaches, that the divine grace, obtained
for us by Christ’s redemption, works in us the consent of our will to all
virtue, though not without our free concurrence; so that all the good that can
be in us is to be attributed to the Creator, and no one can boast of his good
works against another; but God cannot be the author of evil, which rises
entirely from the malice and defect of rectitude in the freewill of the
creature, to whom nothing remains without the divine concurrence, but the
wretched power of depraving and corrupting itself, or at most of doing that
from self-love which ought to be done for God alone. It cannot without grace do
any action of which God is the supernatural end, nor of which by consequence he
will be the recompence; but the necessary grace is never wanting but through
our fault.

Through the
corruption of human nature by sin, pride having become the darling passion of
our heart, men are born with a propensity to Pelagianism, or principles which
flatter an opinion of our own strength, merit, and self-sufficiency. It is not
therefore to be wondered that this heresy found many advocates: next to that of
Arianism the church never received a more dangerous assault. The wound which
this monster caused, would certainly have been much deeper, had not God raised
up this eminent doctor of his grace to be a bulwark for the defence of the
truth. He was a trumpet to excite the zeal of the other pastors, and, as it
were, the soul of all their deliberations, councils, and endeavours to
extinguish the rising flame. To him is the church indebted as to the chief
instrument of God in overthrowing this heresy. From its ashes sprung
Semipelagianism, the authors of which were certain priests, bishops, and monks
in Gaul, at Lerins, and in other parts about Marseilles. St. Prosper and
Hilarius, two zealous and learned laymen, informed St. Austin by letters175 in 429, that these persons expressed the utmost
admiration for all his other actions and words, but took offence at his
doctrine of grace, as if it destroyed freewill in man: they taught that the
beginning of faith, and the first desire of virtue are from the creature, and
move God to bestow that grace which is necessary for men to execute and
accomplish good works. They said, that as to children who die without baptism,
and those infidels to whom the faith is never preached, the reason of their
misfortune is, that God foresees they would not make a good use of longer life
or of the gospel; and that he on that account deprives them of those graces.
St. Austin, in answer to these letters, wrote two books against this error, one
entitled, On the Predestination of the Saints, the other, On the Gift of
Perseverance, showing that the authors of this doctrine did not recede from the
great principles of Pelagius, and that to ascribe to the creature the beginning
of virtue, is to give the whole to it, not to God. The saint treats the
Semipelagians as brethren, because they erred without obstinacy, and their
error had not been yet condemned by any express definition of the church. The
principal persons who espoused it seem to have been Cassian at Marseilles, and
certain monks of Lerins. Faustus, abbot of Lerins, and afterwards bishop of
Ries in 462, several of whose works are extant, carried this error to the
greatest length.176 He died in 480. The Semipelagian heresy was condemned
in the second council of Orange, under St. Cæsarius, in 529, which was
confirmed by Pope Boniface II., in a letter to St. Cæsarius.

The two works which
do most honour to St. Austin’s name are those of his Confessions and
Retractations; in the former of which, with the most sincere humility and
compunction, he lays open the errors of his conduct, and in the latter those of
his judgment. This work of his Retractations he began in the year 426, the
seventy-second of his age, reviewing his writings, which were very numerous,
and correcting the mistakes he had made in an humble sense of them, and with a
surprising candour and severity, never seeking the least gloss or excuse to
extenuate them.177 To have more leisure to finish this and his other
writings, he proposed to his clergy and people to choose for his coadjutor
Eradius, the youngest among his priests, but a person of great virtue and
prudence, and his election was confirmed with great acclamations of the people
on the 26th of September, 426. St. Austin, however, would not have him
consecrated before his death on account of the canon which forbade two bishops
to be ordained for the same city at a time; but he desired the people for the
future to address themselves to Eradius in all their concerns. Count Boniface,
a chief commander in the imperial forces in Africa, (to whom Placidia and
Valentinian III. were chiefly indebted for the empire, for which several rebels
had contended with them,) after the death of his wife, had taken a resolution
to forsake the world, and to embrace a monastic life. St. Austin and St.
Alipius dissuaded him from taking that step, imagining that in his present
situation he was more serviceable to the church and state.178 By insensible degrees he afterwards fell from his
practices of devotion, and good resolutions, and having been obliged, by the
emperor’s order, to go over into Spain, he there married a second time, and
took to wife an Arian woman, related to the kings of the Vandals, which
alliance procured him a share in their friendship, though he insisted that she
should first become a Catholic. This affinity gave occasion to the general
Aëtius, his rival, to render his fidelity suspected to Placidia, daughter of
Theodosius the Great, sister to the late emperor Honorius, widow of the general
Constantius, and at that time regent of the empire during the minority of her
son Valentinian III. Boniface resented his disgrace, and saw his ruin
inevitable,179 wherefore he made a treaty with Gontharis and
Genseric, kings of the Vandals in Spain, and standing upon his defence,
defeated three captains that were sent by Placidia and Aëtius against him. St.
Austin wrote an excellent letter of advice,180 exhorting him to do penance for his sins, to return
to his duty, to forgive all injuries, and if his wife consented, to embrace a
state of continency, according to his former purpose; but as he could not now
do this without her consent, the saint set before his eyes his duty in a
married state, not to love the world, to commit no evil, to subdue his
passions, pray, give alms, do penance, and fast as much as his health would
give him leave. We do not find that Boniface was disposed as yet to follow his
advice. Indeed the step he had then taken made it difficult to provide for his
safety; and St. Austin, who was well acquainted how precarious and delicate a
matter it is to be involved in the jealousies and intrigues of courts, had no
advice which he would venture to give on that head. “You will perhaps say to
me,” said he, “What would you have me to do in this extremity? If you advise
with me concerning your secular affairs, and the means how to preserve or increase
your wealth, I know not what answer to make you. Uncertain things cannot admit
of certain counsels; but if you consult me for the salvation of your soul, I
know very well what to say: Love not the world, neither the things that are
in the world. 1 John ii. 15. Show your courage—repent, pray with zeal and
warmth,” &c.

The
Vandals under Genseric, with an army of fourscore thousand men, sailed from
Spain into Africa, in May 428, upon the invitation of count Boniface.
Possidius, bishop of Calama, an eye-witness, describes the dreadful ravages by
which they filled with horror and desolation all those rich provinces as they
marched. He saw the cities in ruin, and the houses in the country razed to the
ground, the inhabitants being either slain or fled. Some had sunk under the
torture, others had perished by the sword; others groaned in captivity, having
become slaves to brutal and cruel enemies, and many lost the purity of their
body, and their faith. He saw that the hymns and praises of God had ceased in
the churches, whose very buildings had in many places been consumed by fire;
that the solemn sacrifices which were due to God, had ceased in their proper
places, that is, for want of churches they were performed in private houses, or
other unhallowed places; that in many parts there were none left to demand the
sacraments, nor was it easy elsewhere to find any to administer them to those
who required it; that the churches were destitute of priests and ministers; the
consecrated virgins and other religious persons were dispersed into all parts;
they who fled into the woods, mountains, rocks, and caverns, were either taken
and slain, or died with hunger, and for want of necessaries; the bishops and
the rest of the clergy to whom God had been so gracious as not to suffer them
to fall into the hands of the enemy, or to make their escape after they had
been taken, were stripped of every thing, and reduced to the most extreme
degree of beggary; and of the great number of churches in Africa, there were
hardly three remaining (namely Carthage, Hippo, and Cirtha) whose cities were
yet standing, and not laid in ruins. Mansuetus, bishop of Uri, was burnt at the
gate of Furnes, and Papinian, bishop of Vita, was burnt with red-hot bars of
iron.

Amidst this
universal desolation St. Austin was consulted by a bishop named Quodvultdeus,
and afterwards by Honoratus, the pious bishop of Thabenna, whether it was
lawful for bishops or other clergymen to fly upon the approach of the
barbarians. St. Austin’s answer to Quodvultdeus is lost; but in that to
Honoratus181 he refers to it, and repeats the same excellent
maxims. He affirms, that it is lawful for a bishop or priest to fly and forsake
the flock when he alone is aimed at by name, and the people are threatened with
no danger, but left quiet; or when the people are all fled, so that the pastor
has none left who have need of his ministry; or when the same ministry may be
better performed by others who have not the like occasion of flight. In all
other cases, he says pastors are obliged to watch over their flock, which
Christ has committed to them: neither can they forsake it without a crime, as
he proves in terms dictated by the fire of his fervent charity, and with
reasons supported by a zeal altogether divine. Representing the desolation of a
town which is likely to be taken, and the necessity of the presence of Christ’s
ministers, he writes as follows: “In such occasions what flocking is there to
the church, of persons of all ages and sexes! whereof some require baptism,
others reconciliation, (or absolution) others to be put under penance, and all
crave comfort? If then no ministers are to be found, what misfortune is that,
for such as go out of this life unregenerate, or, if penitents, not absolved!
What grief is it to their kindred, if they be faithful, that they cannot hope
to see them with them in everlasting rest! What cries! what lamentations! nay,
what imprecations from some, to see themselves without ministers and without
sacraments! If, on the contrary, ministers have proved faithful in not
forsaking their people, they are an assistance to all the world as God shall
give them power. Some are baptized; others are reconciled; no one is deprived
of the communion of our Lord’s body. All are comforted, fortified, and exhorted
to implore by fervent prayers the assistance of the divine mercy.”

Count Darius was
sent by the empress Placidia into Africa to treat of peace; Boniface produced
to him authentic vouchers how much he had been betrayed and driven to
extremities by the treachery of Aëtius towards him, and returning to his
allegiance, was again intrusted with the command of the imperial army. He
endeavoured to retrieve the loss of Africa; but it was then too late. He tried
to draw off the barbarians first by money, afterwards by force of arms, but
without success. Count Darius wrote to St. Austin with extraordinary respect, and
prayed him that he would send him his book of Confessions. The saint answered
his compliments with unfeigned humility, and told him that he who finds not in
himself those virtues for which he is commended, is but the more ashamed to see
himself thought to be what he is not, but what he ought to be, and adds: “The
caresses of this world are more dangerous than its persecutions.” The saint had
above others a mournful sense of the miseries of his country, while he deeply
considered not only the outward calamities of the people, but also the ruin of
a multitude of souls that was likely to ensue; and he prayed often and
importunately that God would deliver his country, or at least would give his
servants constancy and resignation, and that he would receive him to himself,
that he might not be an idle spectator of such great evils. He spoke much to
his people on resignation to the divine will under all the scourges which their
sins deserved; on the unspeakable mercies, and unsearchable judgments of God
always just, holy, and adorable, and the necessity of averting the divine anger
by sincere penance. Count Boniface, after having been defeated in battle, fled
to Hippo, which was the strongest fortress in Africa. Possidius and several
neighbouring bishops took refuge in the same place. The Vandals appeared before
that city about the end of May, 430, besieging it by land, and at the same time
blocking up its harbour with their fleet by sea. The siege continued fourteen
months. In the third month St. Austin was seized with a fever, and from the
first moment of his illness doubted not but it was a summons of God who called
him to himself. Ever since he retired from the world, death had been the chief
subject of his meditations; and, in his last illness, he spoke of his passage
with great cheerfulness, saying: We have a merciful God. He often spoke of the
resignation and joy of St. Ambrose in his last moments; and of the saying of
Christ to a certain bishop in a vision mentioned by St. Cyprian:182 “You are afraid to suffer here, and unwilling to go
hence: what shall I do with you?” He also mentioned the last words of a certain
friend and fellow-bishop, who, when he was departing out of this world, said to
one who was telling him that he might recover of that illness: “If I must die
once, why not now?” How much we are bound to take a reasonable care of our
health above other temporal goods, for all the necessary purposes of life, he
proves in his letter to Proba:183 yet he often teaches that it is a mark and test of
our loving God to desire vehemently by death to be united eternally and
intimately to God in his perfect love and uninterrupted praise:184 “What love of Christ can that be,” says he,185 “to fear lest he come whom you say you love? O
brethren, are we not ashamed to say, we love, whilst we add, that we are afraid
lest he come?”

He was not able
to contain within his breast the desires of his soul, in which he sighed after
the glorious day of eternity, when we shall behold and possess God our
sovereign good, the object of all our desires. “Then,” says he,186 “we shall bend to him the whole attention, and all
the affections of our souls, and we shall behold him face to face; we shall
behold and love; we shall love and praise. See what will be in the end without
interruption or end.” He thus expresses his sighs with David:187 “Till I shall come, till I appear before him, I cease
not to weep, and these tears are sweet to me as food. With this thirst with
which I am consumed, with which I am ardently carried towards the fountain of
my love, whilst my joy is delayed, I continually burn more and more vehemently.
In the prosperity of the world no less than in its adversity, I pour forth
tears of this ardent desire, which never languishes or abates. When it is well
with me as to the world, it is ill with me till I appear before the face of my God.”188 He redoubled his fervour in these holy sighs as he
drew nearer his term; and he prepared himself for his passage to eternity by
the most humble compunction and penance. He used often to say in familiar
discourse, that after the remission of sins received in baptism, the most
perfect Christian ought not to leave this world without condign penance. In his
last illness he ordered the penitential psalms of David to be written out, and
hung in tablets upon the wall by his bed; and as he there lay sick, he read
them with abundance of tears.189 Not to be interrupted in these devotions, he desired,
about ten days before his death, that no one should come to him except at those
times when either the physicians came to visit him, or his food was brought to
him. This was constantly observed, and all the rest of his time was spent in
prayer. Though the strength of his body daily and hourly declined, yet his
senses and intellectual faculties continued sound to the last. He calmly
resigned his spirit into the hands of God from whom he had received it, on the
28th of August, 430, after having lived seventy-six years, and spent almost
forty of them in the labours of the ministry. He made no will; for this poor
man of Christ had nothing to bequeath. He had given charge that the library
which he had bestowed on his church, should be carefully preserved.

Possidius adds:
“We being present, a sacrifice was offered to God for his recommendation, and
so he was buried,” in the same manner as St. Austin mentions to have been done
for his mother.190 The same author tells that while the saint lay sick
in bed, by the imposition of his hands he restored to perfect health a sick
man, who, upon the intimation made to him in a vision, was brought to him for
that purpose; and he says: “I knew both when he was priest and when he was
bishop, that being requested to pray for certain persons that were possessed,
he had poured out prayers and supplications to our Lord, and the devils
departed from them.”191 An authentic account of several other miracles with
which he was favoured by God, may be read in his life compiled by the pious and
learned Mr. Woodhead.192 It was ascribed to his prayer that the city of Hippo
was not taken in that siege, which the barbarians raised after having continued
it fourteen months. Count Boniface afterwards hazarded another battle, but with
no better success than before. He therefore fled into Italy, and all the
inhabitants of Hippo withdrew into foreign countries, abandoning the empty town
to the barbarians, who then entered and burnt part of it. The saint’s body,
which was buried in the church of Peace, (called St. Stephen, since St. Austin
had deposited there a portion of that martyr’s relics in 424,) was respected by
the barbarians, though they were Arians; and his library escaped their fury.
Bede says, in his true Martyrology, that the body of St. Austin was translated
into Sardinia, and in his time redeemed out of the hands of the Saracens, and
deposited in the church of St. Peter at Pavia, about the year 720. Oldrad,
archbishop of Milan, wrote a history of this translation by order of
Charlemagne, extracted from authentic archives then kept at Pavia. He says that
the bishops who were banished by Huneric into Sardinia, took with them these
relics, about fifty years after the saint’s death; and that they remained in
that island till Luitprand, the pious and magnificent king of the Lombards,
procured them from the Saracens for a great sum of money. He took care to have
this sacred treasure hidden with the utmost care under a brick wall, in a
coffin of lead enclosed in another of silver, the whole within a coffin of
marble, upon which, in many places, was engraved the name Augustinus. In
this condition the sacred bones were discovered in 1695. They were
incontestibly proved authentic by the bishop of Pavia in 1728, whose sentence
was confirmed by Pope Benedict XIII. in the same year as is related by Fontanini
in an express dissertation, and by Touron in his life of that pope.193 The church of St. Peter in Pavia from this treasure
is now called St. Austin’s, and is served both by Austin Friars, and by Regular
Canons of his rule. His festival is mentioned in the Martyrology which bears
the name of St. Jerom, and in that of Carthage as old as the sixth century. In
the life of St. Cæsarius, wrote in that age, it is mentioned to have been then
kept with great solemnity. It is a holiday of obligation in all the dominions
of the king of Spain. A general council being summoned to meet at Ephesus
against Nestorius in 431, the emperor Theodosius sent a particular rescript, by
a special messenger into Africa, to invite St. Austin to it; but he was
departed to eternal bliss.194

This saint was
not only the oracle of his own times, but of the principal among all the Latin
Fathers that came after him, who often have only copied him, and always
professed to adhere to his principles: Peter Lombard, St. Thomas Aquinas, and
other eminent masters among the schoolmen have trodden in their steps. The
councils have frequently borrowed the words of this holy doctor in expressing
their decisions. On the great commendations which Innocent I., Celestine I.,
St. Gregory the Great, and other popes and eminent men have bestowed on his
doctrine, see Orsi,195 Godeau, Massoulié, Gonet, Usher, and innumerable
others. An abstract of his doctrine is given us by Ceillier,196 and in a judicious and clear manner by the learned
Mr. Brereley, in a book entitled, The Religion of St. Augustine, printed in
1620. He shows how great was the veneration which the first reformers generally
expressed for this father. Luther affirms that since the apostle’s time the church
never had a better doctor than St. Austin:197 and that, “after the sacred scripture there is no
doctor in the church who is to be compared to Austin.”198 Dr. Covel says, he was “a man far beyond all that
ever were before him, or shall in likelihood follow after him, both for divine
and human learning, those being excepted that were inspired.”199 Dr. Field calls him “the greatest of all the Fathers,
and the worthiest divine the Church of God ever had since the apostles’ time.”200 Mr. Forester styles him “the monarch of the Fathers.”201 To mention one of our own times, the learned and most
celebrated professor at Berlin, James Brucker, in his Critical History of
Philosophy,202 extols exceedingly the astonishing genius and
penetration, and the extensive learning of this admirable doctor, and tells us
that he was much superior to all the other great men who adorned that most
learned age in which he flourished. The same author, in his Abridgment or
Institutions of Philosophical History,203 calls him “the bright star of Philosophy.” These
testimonies agree with that of Erasmus, who calls St. Austin “the singularly
excellent father, and the chief among the greatest ornaments and lights of the
church:” “Eximius pater, inter summa ecclesiæ ornamenta ac lumina princeps.”

The
eminence of the sanctity of this illustrious doctor was derived from the deep
foundation of his humility, according to the maxim which he lays down: “Attempt
not to attain true wisdom by any other way than that which God hath enjoined. This
is in the first, second, and third place, humility; and this would I answer as
often as you ask me. Not that there are not other precepts; but unless humility
go before, accompany, and follow after, all that we do well is snatched out of
our hands by pride. As Demosthenes, the prince of orators, being asked, which
among the precepts of eloquence was to be observed first? is said to have
answered: Pronunciation, or the delivery. Again, which second? Pronunciation.
Which third? Nothing else (said he) but pronunciation: so if you should ask me
concerning the precepts of the Christian religion, I should answer you, Nothing
but humility. Our Lord Jesus Christ was made so low in order to teach us this
humility, which a certain most ignorant science opposeth.”204

Note 23. He took a concubine, to whom he continued constant;
till, beginning to think of his conversion to God, he dismissed her at Milan in
385, and sent her back to Africa, where she made a vow of continency. He had by
her a son named Adeodatus, who was baptized at the same time with his father,
and died about the eighteenth year of his age, a prodigy for his wit and
genius. [back]

Note 26. Under pretence of apologizing for the fall of so great
a genius as St. Austin into this monstrous heresy, Bayle, instead of presenting
us with a critical inquiry into the history of Manicheism, such as the nature
of his work required, gives only a crude and servile abstract of the general
history of Manes from the Acts of Archelaus, and takes every occasion, under
the various articles of ancient and modern Manichees, Paulicians, and the like,
to adorn, improve, and enforce, with all the subtlety of which he was master,
the arguments of those heretics, against the mysteries of our faith concerning
the origin of evil, &c. This he doubtless did with the same view of
establishing his universal scepticism, and of shaking the foundations of all
religion, with which he unjustly insults the memory of David and so many other
prophets and holy men, and attacks, with a flow of false reasoning, the
mysteries of the Trinity, Incarnation, &c. Nor is he less industrious under
the article of this heresy than under so many other heads to collect a dunghill
of filth and obscenities to poison the morals of men no less than their faith.

Tillemont has unravelled the history of Manicheism with his usual
candour, and has given it methodical and clear; but his account is chiefly
built on the authority of Archelaus; in which also Fleury, Du Pin, Ceillier,
and other moderns agree. Archelaus, bishop of Cascar in Mesopotamia, is said to
have held a public disputation with Manes in that city in the year 277, in
presence of Marcellus, a nobleman of great probity and prudence, many other
persons of distinction, and a great crowd of people. Marcellus seems to have
been the Roman, governor of Mesopotamia under Aurelian, called by Zosimus,
Marcellinus. He and the other judges are said to have pronounced sentence in
favour of Archelaus. A second disputation is related to have been held between
them at the castle of Diodorides. Tillemont remarks certain circumstances here
related to be incredible. (Note 4, sur les Manich. p. 779.) The history of this
conference was not written by Archelaus, as many mistake; for Photius proves
(Cod. 85,) from Heraclian, bishop of Chalcedon, who wrote twenty books against
the Manichees, that Hegemonius was not the Greek translator, as St. Jerom
imagined, but the author of this history. Joseph Assemani has proved this
point, (Bibl. Orient. t. 1, p. 555,) and observes that this Hegemonius lived
some time after Archelaus, and that he seems to have retrenched many things
which had been spoken at the conference, and added others. (App. ad t. 1, Bibl.
Orient. p. 45.) This circumstance renders the credit of the acts of the
conference under the name of Archelaus precarious and uncertain, as in some
points they are absolutely indefensible. Tillemont, Fleury, and Natalis
Alexander, borrow from them the accounts they have given of many things
relating to Manes and his doctrine; for which reason their histories seem in
this part defective.

Isaac de Beausobre, a native of Poitou, who having studied at
Saumur, and been eight years chaplain to the Princess of Anhalt-Dessau, became
pastor of the French refugees at Berlin in 1694, and died there in 1738, has
published an elaborate work entitled, Histoire de Manichée et du Manichéisme,
in which he pretends the acts of this conference were a fiction either of
Hegemonius or some other from whom he had them; but allows the letter of Manes
to Marcellus inserted in them, and copied by Fleury, (l. 8, n. 10,) to be
original and genuine. He might have said the same of the description of the
person and dress of Manes, and some other particulars; from which we cannot
doubt, that Hegemonius had before him some good Syriac memoirs concerning
Manes, though great part of this work deserves no regard. (See Beaus. l. 1, c.
12.) Wherefore, to clear this history of uncertain or fictitious circumstances,
little stress is here laid on the Acts of Archelaus, as they are called. This
conference was unknown to Eusebius, St. Ephrem, and all the ancient Syriac
writers whose works came to the knowledge of D’Herbelot and Jos. Assemani.
Copies of these acts were common in the East in the time of St. Jerom; and a
little before him St. Philastrius had read them: St. Cyril of Jerusalem cited
them, and St. Epiphanius had some knowledge of them.

The authority of the Greek fathers with regard to Manes is too much
slighted by Beausobre. Much less will this author persuade us that the
inquisitive St. Austin, who lived eight years a hearer among the Manichees,
never understood their errors; and usually charges them with consequences of
his own. The curious inquiries of this critic, who is to be read with great
caution, would have done him more honour had his criticism been more modest and
sober, had the fathers been treated by him with more decency, and if his warmth
had not betrayed him into misrepresentations and slanders where he could and
ought to have been better informed, especially l. 9, c. 4, 5, 9, t. 2. He
mistakes the Catholic notion of apostolical tradition belonging to faith, (p.
2, t. 1,) which regards only revealed truths; in points of historical facts,
Tillemont could never fear shaking the foundations of the church, whatever
mistakes in them he could have pointed out in the writings of the fathers; and
his sincerity must convince us that he was never backward in doing it, when he
discovered them. That no creation, properly so called, of the world or matter,
can be proved from holy scriptures, is a falsehood equally rash and unheard of
before this author. This laboured assertion of Beausobre (l.
5, ch. 3, 4, and 5, t. 2, p. 182, &c.) is invincibly confuted by the author
of the late book, entitled, La Religion révélée établie sur les Principes de la
vraie Philosophie, et sur la Divinité des Ecritures; ou Dissertations
Philosophiques, Theologiques, et Critiques contre les Incrédules, Diss. 4,
Paris, 1756. This author has,
however, diligently compiled the history of Manes from the Syriac, Persian, and
Arabian writers. The same is given us also at length, from those sources, by
Moshemius, the celebrated chancellor of the university of Gottingen, in
Comment. de rebus ecclesiæ ante Constantinum Magn. Helmstadii, 1753, p. 728;
also in his Institutiones Hist. Ecclesiæ, sæc. 3. The objections of Beausobre
are solidly refuted by Cacciari Exercit. in S. Leon. M. Op. Rom. 1751, Diss. 1,
de Manich. Hær.

Scythianus, a native, not of Scythia, as some have imagined, but of
Arabia, the first forger of the Manichean imposture, was a very rich merchant,
well skilled in medicine, mathematics, and astronomy, was a Christian before
his fall, and travelled into Egypt, and afterwards into Palestine; and left at
his death his writings to Manes; for he was his contemporary, though senior, as
appears from a letter which Manes wrote to him, a fragment of which is
preserved by Photius, and published by Fabricius, (Bibl. Græc. t. 5, p. 283,)
though some have made Scythianus much older. See St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St.
Epiphanius, and Photius.

Manes was born in Chaldea, according to St. Ephrem, (hymn. 14,) in
the year 240, as we are assured by the chronicle of Edessa, published by Jos.
Assemani. (Bibl. Orient. t. 1, p. 393.) His name was Corbicius or Cubricus; but
he afterwards took that of Manes or Manichæus, not from the Greek word Maneis,
a madman, but from some Chaldaic word. Usher and Beausobre think this name the
same with Manaem or Manahem, the Paraclete or Comforter; Pagninus, Junius, and
Pocock rather pronounce it Manachem, which word the Greeks, who have no
terminations in m, softened into Manes and Manichæus. Scharistani and
others tell us that he was a learned philosopher, and versed in mathematics,
astronomy, and physic, and that he was an excellent painter. He was a
Christian, and was ordained priest, as the learned Jacobite Abulpharagius and
the judicious D’Herbelot testify. Broaching his errors he was excommunicated;
after which he repaired to the court of King Sapor, son of Ardezhir, called by
the Greeks Artaxerxes, the founder of the second Persian monarchy. He lived in
favour with this prince, and accompanied him in his wars, perhaps in quality of
his physician, says Beausobre. Here he renewed and perfected the system which
he had formerly learned of Scythianus, blending in one religion many notions of
heathen philosophers, the Persian Magians, and the gospel. Pretending that all
nations had had their prophets, he preferred those of the ancient Persians and
the other Gentiles (meaning many of their philosophers) to those of the Hebrews
whom he rejected; and he made the Magian notion of two first principles, the
one good, and the other bad, the ground or basis of his imposture.

The Magians originally established two principles coeternal, the
one Good or Light, called Oromazes, or rather Hormizdas, (for all the Persians
write the word with an asper, as Hyde shows,) which name some interpret from
the Chaldaic, shining light or fire; others more reasonably, from the Persian Oro,
good, and mazd, God. The other principle which was evil, they called
Arimanes, or rather Aberman, i. e. the devil, whom they thought
the origin of all evil. See Plutarch de Iside et Osiride, Agathias, &c. It
is certain that the Persians never adored this evil principle, nor called it
God, though some Greeks, in giving account of their system, gave it that name,
and some other idolaters had their avenging or malicious god, whom they
appeased by sacrifices and supplications. Some Persians, quoted by Dr. Hyde,
(p. 5,) denied that they adored the planets, or fire, or even Mithra, that is,
the pure heavenly fire of the sun; but though they did not make them equal to
the supreme God, it is manifest from the acts of the Persian martyrs, and other
monuments, that the Persian Magians in general worshipped all the four elements
as inferior deities.

The reformation of the Magian religion introduced by Zerdusht,
Zardasch, or Zoroaster, the great Persian impostor and philosopher, who had
probably conversed with Daniel or Esdras, consisted in this, that he taught
only one God, as he often repeats in his famous book called Sad-Der, which Dr.
Hyde has published in the end of his learned treatise, On the Religion of the
ancient Persians. Zoroaster pretended that this God formed the good and the
evil principle, the subaltern causes of all things, but not coeval; for he said
the devil, or bad intelligent principle, sprang out of the chaos of matter when
God brought matter or darkness out of the corner of infinite space in which
till then it had lurked. Thus is his system explained by Abulpharagius, (whose
history is translated by Pocock, p. 143,) by Ibn Sabna, quoted by Hyde, and
other oriental writers; also by Theodore of Mopsuestia, (Tr. de Magiâ Persar.
apud Photium,) &c. Prideaux is much mistaken, who takes the Persian evil
principle to have been a mere privation; (l. 4, t. 1;) for the Magians imagined
it a positive real principle, which was an efficient cause of a great part of
the universe.

Ramsay in his Travels of Cyrus, in his Mythology, and in his
Philosophical Principles of Religion, has set off the religion of the ancient
Persians, and that of most other idolaters in a fine dress, but very different
from the truth, to make their system more favourable to his monstrous idea of
one universal religion of the world. It is certain that Zoroaster taught the
resurrection of the dead, a heaven, and a hell, with several other great
truths. This philosopher was most puzzled to account how evil and its first
principle did not come from God, as in this system it was disentangled and
extracted out of the chaos by him; and Pocock observes (p. 149,) that upon this
article the Magians were always much divided among themselves. Mr. Thomas Hyde,
the learned Oxford professor, remarks, (p. 126,) that there were among them
above seventy sects, differing chiefly concerning the properties of this evil
principle. Among these some after Zoroaster’s time adhered to the old Magian
principles, and were called Magusians, i. e. Followers of the Magians.
They are mentioned by St. Epiphanius, Bardesanes, St. Basil, (ap. Eus. Præp. l.
6, c. 10,) &c. Scharistani, in his book published by Hyde, tells us, (p.
282,) that Manes approved this popular sect, the capital point of whose
doctrine was, that the two principles of light and darkness are eternal and
coeval, both necessarily existing, and producing necessarily, all other things
that are produced, good and bad. This was the origin of Manicheism.

Sapor and the reigning Zoroastrian Magians were much offended at
the innovation of Manes, who pretended that he had learned his new doctrine in
an ecstacy, had received his apostleship immediately from heaven, and was
inspired by the Paraclete whom Christ had promised to send. The king resolved
to put him to death, and he only saved his life by flying into Turquestan, a
country situated on the eastern side of the Caspian sea. See Condemir, (in
Hyde, p. 282,) and D’Herbelot. (Bibl. Orient, p. 549.) There in a cave he wrote
his gospel (often quoted by the fathers) in the same manner as Zoroaster had
compiled his Zend, in solitude. The capital of Turquestan was called Cascar,
and it is possible that Manes might here have the conference, which Hegemonius
placed in Mesopotamia. This province of Turquestan was neither subject to the
Persians nor to the Romans, and Manes had sent thither before him his disciple
Addas, who had gained some proselytes to his sect. Sapor I. died in 272,
according to D’Herbelot; and his son Hormisdas ascended the throne, who had
before secretly favoured the pretended prophet. Manes, therefore, taking with
him the book of his gospel, which he had adorned with excellent paintings, and
in which he had written his own revelations, returned into Persia. Hormisdas
not only declared himself his protector, but embraced his doctrine, as Megiddi,
a Persian historian, (in Hyde, p. 284,) assures us, and he built a strong
castle for Manes that he might have a secure retreat in case of danger. But
this prince dying before he had reigned quite two years, his son Varanes first
favoured, but afterwards persecuted Manes, who was put to death most probably
by him, though some think by his adoptive son and successor, Varanes II.

The cause of his death is ascribed in the acts of Archelaus to his
failing to cure the king’s son according to his promise, and to his flight; but
by Condemir and Ibn Sabna, (in Hyde, p. 281,) and others quoted by Hottinger,
(Hist. Orient. pp. 254, 279, &c.) to his impiety, especially in denying the
resurrection of the dead, which was a great article of the Zoroastrian
doctrine, as we are assured by Diogenes Laërtius (Proem.) and by the Persian
and Arabian writers. (See Hyde, l. de Relig. Vet. Persar. in Append. p. 537.)
Condemir (in Hyde, p. 283,) says, he was crucified near the gate of the city.
Smir-Condus (in Renaud. Hist. Patr. Alex. p. 43,) says he was flayed alive, and
his skin stuffed with hay and hung on a gibbet. Abulpharagius relates that he
was flayed only after his death. All agree that his body was thrown to the
beasts and birds of prey to be devoured; and this was the usual custom of the
Persians, not to defile the element of the earth, as Hyde proves; but another
reason of this practice was, because they thought it was most noble to have
living creatures for their sepulchres, as Stephen Assemani takes notice (in
Acta Mart. Orient.) The bodies of kings and great men were allowed by a special
privilege to be buried in monuments of stone. (Tho. Hyde, c. 34, p. 410.)

The Manichees kept the feast of their doctor and apostle on the day
of his death, in March, and called it Bema, the Greek word for a chair or
tribunal, as St. Austin mentions. (l. 18, contra Faust. c. 5, et 1. contra ep.
Fundamenti, c. 8.) His death happened in 277, at Gandi Sapor, a city built by
Sapor I. upon the ruins of Persepolis, in the province of Elam. He and his
successors of the second Persian monarchy chiefly resided there, and almost
abandoned Ctesiphon and Seleucia, the seats of the Parthian kings. (See Jos.
Assemani, Bibl. Orient. t. 3, par. 2, p. 43.) Here it was that Sapor kept the
Emperor Valerian prisoner, as Barhebræus tells us. (Ib.) The Syrians often call
this city Lapeta, Beth-Lapeta, and Elymais, though the ancient Elymais was at
some distance. Manes chose twelve apostles, of which the three principal were
Thomas, Addas, and Hermas. Another of them, called Leucius, wrote false Acts of
the Apostles of Christ, and a book on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin. The
Manichees became a very numerous sect, and spread themselves in Persia,
Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, Greece, Africa, and Spain; and, in the seventh
century, in Armenia; afterwards in Bulgaria, Lombardy, and Languedoc; but were
everywhere the execration equally of Pagans, Jews, Mahometans, and Christians.

The whole doctrine of Manes turned chiefly upon the distinction of
the two principles of Light and Darkness, which had been first introduced among
Christians by the heresiarch Basilides, who had travelled into Persia, and who
dogmatized at Alexandria in the beginning of the second age. The latter is
accused by the fathers of magic; it is certain that he taught many
superstitious notions and practices about his Eons or angels. His famous symbol
called Abraxas, was a small figure or talisman, representing or signifying, not
as Tertullian and St. Jerom imagined, the supreme God, who, according to him,
has no name; but the prince of the Eons, or three hundred and sixty-five
heavens, (or rather of the three hundred and sixty-five angels whom he placed
in so many heavens) as St. Irenæus assures us. (l. 1, c. 23; see Dom Massuet,
Diss. et not. ib.) Scaliger, Wendelin, F. Hardouin, and some others, pretend to
find in this word allusions to Christ; but it is manifest that a talisman or
magical figure, pretended to expel devils and cure diseases, was used by the
Egyptians under the name Abraxas, signifying an imaginary god presiding in the
heavens; from these Egyptians Basilides borrowed this superstitious conceit. In
the cabinets of antiquaries we meet with many ancient little figures called
Abraxas, cut in stone in various monstrous forms. John Macarius, canon of Aire,
and John Chifflet, canon of Tournay, pretend all these to have been figures
used by the Basilidians; but the hundred and twenty such figures which Chifflet
caused to be engraved in his book on this subject, are all demonstrated to be
representations of different Egyptian idols. See Jablonski, (Diss de Nomine
Abraxas, in Miscell. Lipsiens. novis, t. 7,) and Montfaucon. (Palæograph. Græc.
l. 2, c. 8, p. 177.) On this account Passeri (l. de Gemmis Stelliferis. Diss.
de Gemmis Basilidianis. t. 2, p. 221; Florentiæ, an. 1750,) will have it that
all these figures are of Egyptian idolatrous extraction; but, as he confesses,
and as it is evident, that several of them contain express allusions to Christ,
such ought certainly to be ascribed to the Basilidians. On Basilides, and his
impious tenets, see St. Irenæus, St. Clement of Alexandria, &c.

Marcion, his contemporary, propagated the doctrine of two
principles in Pontus, and at Rome, rejected the Old Testament, and denied the
resurrection of the flesh. Bardesanes, a Christian philosopher of Edessa,
admitted also a good and an evil principle, denied the resurrection, and fell
in with Apelles, Marcion, and the Docetæ, who denied the reality of Christ’s
incarnation and passion. (See St. Ephrem, Eusebius, St. Clement, &c.) These
heretics were the precursors of Manes, who engrafted his own inventions upon
their false principles. This impostor taught that the good and bad principle
(or God with his heavenly powers, and the devil with his angels) had originally
each their empire, divided by certain bounds; that of the latter consisted,
according to this heresiarch, of five distinct regions, each made up of a
different element; over each of which presided a ruling evil power, with many
subordinate bad angels or demons, all under the dominion of the great prince,
or the devil. God knew the darkness, but the darkness knew not him, till by
increasing and multiplying, and by an intestine war amongst themselves, the bad
angels were driven upon the borders of light, and invaded its happy realms.
Light seeing this attack, framed the First Man, composed of five elements of the
celestial substance, contrary to those of Matter or darkness, and sent him to
oppose them; and afterwards sent another power, called the Living Spirit, to
succour him in his conflict. However, the demons seized a part of the heavenly
substance, and from that time good and evil are blended in our world, which
were formed from this mixture; for the living spirit, whom they imagined one of
the first intelligences, (or emanations from light or God,) vanquished the
demons, and bound them in the air, and of the two substances, good and bad now
mixed together, formed the world; of that spiritual substance which he was able
to separate from the contagion of matter, he made the sun and higher heavens;
of that which remained corrupted in a small degree, he formed the moon, and
other lower planets, and what continued too much confounded with matter was
employed in framing whatever composes the sublunary world, in which everything
differs in perfection as more or less of the heavenly substance abides in it.
Thus the heresiarch pretended to account for the origin of evil. See Manes
quoted by St. Austin, (l. contra ep. Fundam.) the accurate Titus, bishop of
Bostra, now called Bosra, in Arabia, who flourished in 362, (l. 1, contra
Manich. Bibl. Patr. t. 4, par. 2, p. 882,) Theodoret, St. John Damascen,
&c.

Some moderns think this living Spirit was, according to Manes, God
the Son; others the Holy Ghost, or, more probably, an inferior intelligence. By
the First Man he meant the human soul before its incorporation, but of a
material substance; which notion he derived from the opinion of Plato, and
several ancient philosophers and heretics, concerning the pre-existence of
souls, which some pretended were sent into bodies in punishment of former
offences. Manes taught that this First Man was a mediate emanation of God, that
is, a part, not of his essence, but of the heavenly substance. He pretended
that everything in nature was animated, or had something of a soul or spirit in
it. (See Titus Bostr. St. Austin, ib. &c.) He said that angels presided in
each star; that the demons in the air were the cause of tempests; that seeing
human souls the most excellent parts of the celestial substance, and contriving
how to retain them, they formed two organized bodies of matter upon the model
of the First Man, to attract the souls, and with the allurements of
concupiscence to incline them to perpetuate their captivity. Faustus, the
Manichee, would not affirm to St. Austin, that the devil made the difference of
sexes; which expression would have been too shocking; but only that God made
the First Man (or the soul) and nature the second man, with the difference of
sexes. (St. Aug. contra Faust. l. 24, c. 1; l. 29, c. 2, &c.) In
consequence of these principles, Manes advanced, that in every man there are
two souls; the one heavenly, in which are the seeds of virtue, the other
carnal, the seat of vice, and from the devil. (S. Aug. l. de duabus animabus
contra Manichæos.) Beausobre pretends, against St. Austin, that the Manichees
were not fatalists; but however free they maintained souls to be in the state
of innocence, they denied them, in their state of captivity, a constant true
liberty of indifference. Though they taught that Christ had recovered for us
the grace or succour to overcome evil, and that we are obliged to resist it;
yet they believed the empire of evil to be often irresistible in them, as is
evident from all St. Austin’s books against them, and all other fathers and
historians.

The Manichees placed the sin of Adam and Eve in the use of
marriage; (S. Aug. de Mor. Manich. c. 19, et Op. Imperf. l. 3, c. 172;) perhaps
they thought that otherwise the species would have been propagated some other
way. Manes condemned the use of marriage, as in itself sinful, which was
certainly the doctrine of some of the ancient Gnostics before him. His reasons
were, that it is founded in concupiscence, and propagates the work of the
devil, in confining human souls in bodies of matter. (So
S. Austin contra Faust. l. 22, c. 30; l. 30, c. 6; l. contr. Secund. c. 21; l.
de Hæres. c. 46; l. de Morib. Manich.
c. 18; St. Leo, ep. 15, c. 7.) St. Austin says, (locis citat, &c.) that
they allowed unnatural lusts. As to fornication, the same holy doctor says they
tolerated it; (ib.) nevertheless, they called it a fruit of the devil, (apud
Acta Disp. Archelai, p. 30,) and Manes extolled chastity, and called his elect,
Men Virgins. The Hearers among the Manichees were allowed to marry, to sow
corn, and to eat flesh, as St. Austin assures us, (ep 74, ad Deuter.) probably
as imperfections, but excusable in them by the necessity and condition of
nature, or of its captivity; but the Elect or Perfect were never allowed to eat
of any living creature, drink wine, possess riches, or meddle with secular
affairs, these being all works of the devil or matter.

Manes taught the transmigration of souls; that death is their true
birth and deliverance from matter and the devil: that those of infidels and
sinners are punished in hell, but for a time only; that they are then sent into
other bodies, according to their demerits; as, for example, the souls of
murderers into the bodies of lepers or asses; and being purified by several
transmigrations, are conveyed to the moon, and some time after to the sun,
being purged more perfectly in every state, till, being delivered from all
contagion, they are removed from the sun into the realm of light. Manes denied
the resurrection of the flesh, holding this to be evil; but he taught the
general judgment, and the conflagration and utter destruction of the world,
when all the heavenly substance should be delivered from matter, and fully
purged; that then the devils should be confined to utter darkness, and their
boundaries guarded, that they may make no more inroads on the kingdom of God.
From the same principle he taught, that Christ, the Son of God, who came to
deliver human souls, and communicated grace, that is, knowledge and succour to
them, only took the external figure, not the real nature of man, this being
evil, and from the devil. Therefore he denied Christ’s incarnation, and his
birth from a virgin; also, that he used food for sustenance, suffered, died, or
rose again; though the impostor said he did all these things in appearance, to
deceive and conquer the devil. The doctrine of this heresiarch concerning his
passible Jesus is, that he is daily born, and daily dies in every leek, fruit,
tree, and other thing that is produced or destroyed. (See
Faustus apud S. Aug. l. 20, c. 2 et 11; Evodius de Fide apud S. Aug. c. 34.) The meaning of which seems to be, that Jesus left some
emanation of the heavenly elements which he brought upon earth, to be
communicated to, and to be a seed of spiritual vigour in everything against the
encroaching power of evil. Manes curtailed and interpolated the New Testament,
and rejected the Old as the work of the evil powers; he also denied the
inspiration, or at least the superior authority of the Hebrew prophets, to whom
he opposed old Chaldæan Gentile philosophers, and produced apocryphal-books in
support of his extravagant heresies.

He imagined God to be extended and corporeal, for he held nothing
truly spiritual, or uncompounded, and without physical or real parts: yet he
denied God to be material, taking this word for the evil substance; and
he denied him to be present where this was, though extended every where else.
He conceived matter to be endued with senses and perception, but without any
moral good quality; and he said the devil and his angels sprang out of it, not
from eternity, but in time. He held a Trinity, and a kind of consubstantiality
of the three Persons, but thought them as much distinct as three men, and the
Son and Holy Ghost inferior and immediate emanations of part of the essence of
the Father, subordinate and dependent: that since the formation of the material
world, the Son resides in the sun and in the moon, and the Holy Ghost in the
air, assisting souls by his salutary influences, and continually producing in
all sublunary things the passible Jesus. (Faustus apud S. Aug.) The Manichees never
worshipped the evil principle, but hated it, as Titus of Bostra and others
observe; and Faustus declares that they only adored the divinity of the Father
Almighty, Christ his son, and the Holy Ghost. (Ap. S. Aug. l. 20. c. 1.)

St. Austin reproaches them with idolatry in their worship of the
sun, moon, and heavenly powers. Beausobre endeavours to vindicate them and the
ancient Persians on this head. (S. Aug. contr. Faust. l. 20, c. 3.) Dr. Tho.
Hyde thinks the Magians did not adore the sun and moon, for they only turned
their faces at their prayers towards the sun in the day, and the moon in the
night, as the two great witnesses of God, who loveth light, and hateth
darkness. (De Relig. vet. Pers. in Sad-Der, p. 513.) This author procured a
testimony of this from the Guebres in the Indies, who follow the religion of
the ancient Magians. (De hodierno staatu Persiæ, p. 108, &c.) But all these
sects ascribed to the intelligences which presided in these planets, certain
perfections which agree only to the Divinity. Moreover, it is superstitious to
pay any religious honour to creatures without the divine warrant; much more if
a person, under any idea whatever, should have any religious respect for
imaginary beings, as fairies, or the sylphs and gnomes of the Rosicrusians. The
Persian martyrs regarded the Magians’ worship of the sun and elements as
idolatrous. (See their Acts.) The Manichees, in the hymns which they sung
instead of David’s Psalms, which they rejected, praised commentitious heavenly
intelligences, as having ridiculous forms and functions, one called Atlas,
supporting and carrying the earth, (not the heavens,) another dispensing the
five heavenly elements, &c. (See S. Aug. contr. Faust. l. 15, c. 5, 6; l.
20, c. 10.)

The Manichees had no idols, altars, or sacrifices; kept the feasts
of Easter and Pentecost; also Sunday, but fasted on all Sundays and Mondays,
believing the end of the world would happen on one of those days. Beausobre
thinks they kept the feast of the Magians, mentioned by Agathias, for killing
all venomous creatures, as a practice disagreeable to the devil, whose
instruments they called them. The Manichees held original sin, and baptized
children. (S. Aug. Op. Imp. l. 3, n. 187.) They celebrated the eucharist, but,
instead of wine, which was absolutely forbidden their elect, used in it water.
The elect were the perfect, who observed all the counsels, and out of whom
their masters, bishops, priests, and deacons were chosen. (S. Aug. de hæres. p.
46.) The Hearers possessed estates, drank wine, eat flesh, sowed corn, and took
wives. (S. Aug. contra Faust. l. 20, c. 23.) They destroyed venomous serpents
and pernicious beasts; but thought it unlawful to kill harmless living
creatures, (S. Aug. contra Faust. l. 6, c. 5, 1, &c.) and the elect never
ate their flesh. Many ancient heathens among the Indians, who held the
transmigration of souls, thought it unlawful to kill any living creature: which
the Banians at present extend even to serpents, noxious insects, &c., for
which they have hospitals. Above all things, the Manichees abstained from fish,
choosing rather to die of hunger than to eat it. (S. Aug. contra Faust. l. 16,
c. 9.) Wine they called the gall of the prince of darkness. (Id. de Hæres. et
de Mor. Manich. c. 16.)

They extended the transmigration of human souls sometimes to brutes
and plants, and thought trees and plants feel, and have rational souls or
perhaps particles of the heavenly substance, of which souls are emanations.
Hence they said, that a tree feels pain and weeps when it is cut, or its fruit
is plucked off. (S. Aug. contra Faust. l. 6, c. 4; l.
16, c. 28; l. de Hæres, &c.) And
St. Austin tells us, that they thought to reap corn, or to gather fruit, was to
be guilty of many murders; (De Hæres. et l. 20, contra Faust. c. 16, &c.)
but he means murders far less criminal than homicide. Yet, upon the plea of
necessity, their Hearers were allowed to do all these things, and to sow corn;
and the elect to eat bread, &c.; but some of them first prayed that God’s
curses might fall on those who had sowed and reaped the corn, not on them who
only by necessity ate it. (St. Epiph. n. 28.) Neither did the elect bathe in
water, for fear of defiling that element; and one of them carried this
superstition so far as to gather the dew upon the grass to wash his hands and
face with.

The Manichees condemned war, but allowed necessary self-defence.
The elect were forbidden to build houses, to traffic, or to possess estates;
and they boasted of great continency; but St. Austin calls their chastity
hypocrisy, and accuses them of abominable unnatural lusts, as does St. Leo,
&c. Nor can it be reasonably doubted, that falling into habits of such
crimes, they justified them by principle, though the general precepts of their
sect condemned them. We have seen in our time three eminent preachers of a new
sect, notoriously convicted of justifying to their accomplices such vices by
principle, though this is not the avowed doctrine of their sect. The Manichees
thought it lawful to dissemble or deny their religion, in order to avoid
persecution, as Photius shows; (l. adv. Manich. repull. l. 1, c. 8,) and from
them the Priscillianists borrowed that pernicious principle; “Jura perjura,
secretum prodere noli.”

The Manichees, who spread themselves in Armenia, and other eastern
countries, in the seventh century, were called Paulicians, from one Paul, their
ringleader. They excited a rebellion in these parts against the Empress
Theodora, and another in the ninth century against the Emperor Basil the
Macedonian. Being vanquished, and expelled that country, they propagated their
errors in Bulgaria, and from thence penetrated into Germany, Lombardy, and
Languedoc; for a further account of this heresy, see note under S. Dominic. 4
Aug. p. 192; also Bossuet’s Hist. of Variat. l. 11, et Raderus, Hist. de
Manichæis. On the ancient Manichees, see Beausobre, Hist. de
Manichée et du Manichéisme; also Mosheim, l. de Rebus Christian, ante
Constantin. M. Sæc. 3, p.
734, and more succinctly in his Institution. Historic. Sæc.
3, c. 5, p. 133. [back]

Note 67. D’Andilly
and Cousin (Journ. des Sav.) pretend that gluttony in this place means eating
only for the sake of pleasure, not for necessity and health, which this father
often condemns. The pleasure annexed to this action is not sinful, and may be
sanctified by a good motive; but it becomes a fault if it be sought merely for
its own sake, not for the necessity of corporal health. St. Austin complains of
this snare laying in wait for us in the way, and endeavouring to go before the
other motive of virtue and duty. (c. 31, n. 2.) But in this passage (n. 2,) the
word crapula implies some small excess beyond the bounds of absolute
necessity, which the holy penitent, notwithstanding his great sobriety and
austerity, still sometimes feared; for St. Austin alludes to Luke xxi. 34. M. Petit, in a dissertation printed at Utrecht, and
Bayle ridiculously pretend, crapula here means excess in wine without
the loss of reason; which paradox is evidently confuted by Dom. Martin the
Maurist monk, in his notes on his learned French translation of the Confessions
of St. Austin, in 1743. He observes, among other arguments, that no monks at
that time drank pure wine; that the life St. Austin then led was remarkably
austere; and that not only St. Cæsarius, (Serm. 294, in App.) St. Basil, and
other fathers, but also St. Austin himself, from Isa. v.
11, 22, show those to be guilty of a grievous mortal sin who
by a habit of intemperance bear immoderate quantities of liquor, without danger
of losing their senses. “He obtains the name of having a strong head, but is so
much the more criminal, as he is the more unconquerable, in his cups.” “Viri
fortis accipit nomen; tanto nequior, quanto sub poculo invictior.” St. Aug.
Serm. 135, n. 6, p. 730, t. 5. [back]

Note
74. These conferences he in his closet committed to
writing for the benefit of his scholars. The first of these works consists of
three books, Against the Academics, who taught that all things are doubtful, and
that we know nothing with certainty and evidence, but only with probability; in
which error St. Austin himself had been lately engaged. He intermixes strenuous
exhortations to the study of truth and wisdom. These three books are written
with all imaginable elegance. The style is regular, the reasoning just; the
subject is well cleared, and the discourse is beautified with agreeable
suppositions and pleasant stories. These dialogues are not much inferior to
Tully’s Tusculan questions for style, and are much above them for the exactness
and solidity of the arguments. St. Austin in his Retractations censures some
parts of them as not sufficiently savouring of the gospels. On occasion of
keeping his birth-day, he composed his book, On a Happy Life, showing that this
is only to be found in virtue and in serving God; he says that the most
dangerous rock to be feared in the navigation of this life is that of
vain-glory, which we meet with at the first setting out, when it is difficult
to avoid shipwreck. He laments that he had been long wrapped up in the clouds
of the Manichean errors, and led astray by the love of pleasure and glory; but
says that the mist being at last dissipated, and he having discovered the star
that showed him the truth, he immediately weighed all his anchors to come into
the port of happiness.

In his two books, On Order, he demonstrates that all things fall
under the divine providence; and though moral evil arises from the defect and
malice of the creature, it is still subjected by God to his providence, who
draws good from it by his mercy and justice. In the second, he prescribes his
scholars rules for the conduct of their morals, and the order they are to
observe in learning the sciences, recommending to them to accompany all their
studies with assiduous prayer, begging of God true wisdom and knowledge. In his
two books of Soliloquies (so called because in them he reasons with his own
soul) he teaches that we attain to the true knowledge of God by faith, hope,
and charity, and by turning our affections and thoughts from earthly things to
seek and love nothing but God. After this, he treats of the nature of the human
soul.

There is a book of Meditations, and another of Soliloquies which
bear the name of St. Austin, but are modern works compiled from parts of his
Soliloquies and Confessions, and from the writings of Hugh of St. Victor,
&c. as the Manual of the like nature is from scraps of St. Austin, St.
Anselm, &c. (See t. 6, App.)

St. Austin wrote at Milan, soon after his baptism, his book, On the
Immortality of the Soul, for a supplement to his Soliloquies. The hymn Te
Deum is ascribed by some writers of the ninth century to SS. Ambrose and
Austin on the occasion of the baptism of the latter, but without grounds, as
Dom. Menard and Tillemont show, though it is probably as ancient; for it was
generally used in the sixth century, as appears from the rule of St. Bennet,
&c. [back]

Note
82. He
began several works at Rome which he finished in Africa, as his dialogue with
his son Adeodatus, On the Master, to demonstrate Christ alone to be the true
interior master of heavenly wisdom; in which work he assures us the arguments
which he puts in the mouth of Adeodatus were his own, who was then only in his
sixteenth year. His dialogue, On Music, contains six books, of which the five
first that he began at Milan cannot be understood without much study; they
treat of the comparison and proportions which poetical harmony and sounds bear
with the order of virtue; the sixth, which he calls the fruit of all the rest,
teaches youth to raise their mind from changeable numbers to the unchangeable
truth, which is God. In his book, On the quantity of the Soul, he answers
several questions concerning the prerogatives of the human soul, and shows that
extension and increase cannot be ascribed to it in any other than a
metaphorical sense.

Our holy doctor, who had been involved in the errors of the
Manichees, now became the champion of truth against them. He began at Rome his
three books, On Free-will, in which he demonstrates against them that article
of faith; though, as if he had foreseen the Pelagian heresy, he teaches that
the good use of free-will is only from God, and an effect of his grace. (l. 2,
c. 19, n. 50, c. 20, n. 50, Retract. l, 1. c. 9, n. 5.) His chief design in
this work is to prove that the will of the creature is the only cause of sin,
and he treats of original sin and its effects. In his book, On the Manners of
the church, he shows, against the slanders of the Manichees, the sanctity of
her doctrine and morals; he produces several precedents of holy men, setting
forth the examples of many monks and nuns who having severed themselves from
the world, spend their lives in constant abstinence and in exercises of piety;
also of many holy prelates and priests who keep themselves pure in the midst of
a corrupt age; and, lastly, of an infinite number of lay-christians who lead
most exemplary lives. He says that though there are some superstitious or
wicked persons in the church, these she reproves and instructs. In another book
called, On the Manners of the Manichees, he sets forth the hypocrisy, impiety,
and licentiousness of these heretics, and the falsehood of the boasted chastity
and austerity of their elect.

One of his best works against the Manichees is the elegant and
excellent book, On the True Religion, which he addressed to Romanian, whom he
had formerly engaged in that sect, who was his patron, and whose son Licentius
was his beloved disciple. This work is justly admired by St. Paulinus; it was
the last which St. Austin wrote before he was advanced to the priesthood, and
in it appears how well he was already versed in the doctrine of our faith, and
in the writings of the fathers as well as in the heathen philosophers. He
shows, that religion which adores one God, and which teaches us to pay to him
the true worship which he requires, is the only thing that can lead us to
truth, virtue, and happiness, and that this is only the Catholic faith. He
refutes idolatry, judaism, and all heresies, and Manicheism in particular, with
its doctrine of the evil principle, and of the origin of evil, which he proves
to spring from the malice and defect of creatures. He teaches that sin is so
essentially voluntary, that unless it be so, it is not sin; for otherwise all
exhortations and corrections, and the very law of God itself would be useless.
(c. 14.) As to his saying that miracles had then ceased, (c. 25,) this he
afterwards corrected, adding, that he meant the ordinary and frequent gifts of
miraculous powers; for, as he says, even when he wrote this, he had seen some
miracles performed at Milan. (l. 1, Retract. c. 13.) He proves that both
authority and reason lead us to the Catholic church, and insists on the
sanctity of its morals; he mentions its innumerable martyrs and holy virgins,
though some bad livers are tolerated in it, who are like chaff mingled with the
corn on the barn-floor; he closes the work with an exhortation to the practice
of charity towards God and our neighbour; to that of religion and of all other
virtues, and insists on the obligation of renouncing the theatre, and all the
criminal and vain part of the world. [back]

Note 85.This monastic institute soon spread over
Africa, but was extinguished there by the invasion of the Vandals. It was
revived in Europe in several congregations, which were all united in one Order
by Pope Alexander IV. in 1254, and its present constitutions were compiled in
1287. The Order of the Hermits of St. Austin at present consists of forty-two
provinces, besides those called the Discalceated, who go barefoot, and live in
great austerity and recollection. The project of this reformed congregation was
set on foot in 1532, by F. Thomas of Jesus, a native of Lisbon, and a great
servant of God, author of that excellent book, entitled, The Sufferings of
Christ, which he composed whilst he was confined in a dungeon in Morocco; for
he was chosen by the young king Sebastian to accompany him in his unfortunate
expedition into Barbary, in which that good prince perished, with the flower of
Portugal, in 1578, in the twenty-fifth year of his age, fighting against
Abdemelec, king of Fez and Morocco, who died of sickness in his litter, during
the same battle. F. Thomas was taken prisoner, and sold to a Morabut or
Mahometan monk, who attempted, first by mildness, afterwards by confining him
in a frightful prison, and exercising upon him daily most cruel torments, to
bring him over to his superstition. He was delivered out of the hands of this
inhuman master by the ambassador of King Henry, formerly cardinal, and the holy
man’s great patron. But the money which was sent him by his sister the countess
of Linares, and by the Kings Henry and Philip II. for his own use, he caused to
be employed in ransoming other slaves, and chose to stay, though no longer a
prisoner, at the sagena or prison, where were detained above two thousand
Christian slaves of different nations, whom he never ceased to comfort and
assist with heavenly exhortations, and the functions of his sacred ministry. He
brought back to the faith many apostates of note, and encouraged them to suffer
a glorious martyrdom. Having spent four years in captivity, in the constant
exercise of the most heroic virtues, especially charity, prayer, patience,
penance, and mortification, he died the death of the saints, on the 17th of
April, 1582. He had suffered great contradiction in his own Order, by
endeavouring to introduce his reformation; but this got ground upon his plan
after his happy death. (See F. Alleaume, Helyot, and the last edition of
Morery.)

Of the reformed Austin Friars or Hermits, there are, at present,
five provinces in Spain, and three in France and Italy. The institute of the
hermits is more severe than the other; they are governed by two different
vicars-general. Pope Pius V. in 1567, declared the Austin Friars one of the
Mendicant Orders. It cannot be doubted but St. Austin instituted manual labour
in his monastery, since, about the year 400, he wrote a book, On the Labour of
Monks, to prove this obligation in a penitential monastic state, (t. 6, p. 475.
See Fleury, l. 20, c. 34.) But he allowed useful studies and spiritual
functions, instead of manual labour, in those who are qualified for them, or
called to the ministry of the altar, as is evident from his own studies and
those of many of his colleagues, whilst he lived according to his first
institute, before he was advanced to the episcopal dignity, or established the
Regular Canons, who were applied solely to the spiritual functions of the
ministry. The Regular Canons and Canonesses of St. Austin had, in England,
before the suppression of monasteries, one hundred and fifteen monasteries; the
Austin Friars thirty-two. See Bishop Tanner’s Notitia Monastica, in Præf.

St. Austin was no sooner consecrated bishop, but being obliged to
live with his clergy in the city, he formed them into a regular community, in
which every one was obliged to give what he was possessed of to the poor, or to
throw it into the common stock of the house, out of which the provost, who was
chosen yearly, distributed to every one what was necessary. St. Austin always
refused legacies left to his church, to the prejudice of children or heirs;
though he exhorted all persons to reckon Christ as one among their children,
and to reserve a portion for him in his poor. If any one deserted this state
after he had embraced it, he was punished as an apostate, and guilty of
breaking his vow. (See St. Austin, Serm. 355, 356, two discourses, On the Life
and Manners of the Clerks, t. 5, also Possidius.) This is the original of the
Regular Canons of St. Austin, a distinct Order from that of his Hermits.
Consult on this Order of Canons of St. Austin the Maurist Monks in the
excellent new Gallia Christiana, t. 7, p. 778, 787, 790. [back]

Note 89. Though the noble simplicity, energy, strength,
dignity, and justness of the sacred style in the inspired writers be
inimitable, their language is that of the age and countries where they lived;
nor are we in this to expect the Attic purity and diction, as St. Austin
observed. Of this we are not to pass a judgment from some detached periods, as
Mr. Blackwall has done, but from a full view of the whole context. It is
recorded by some modern historians to have been a saying of St. Austin, that,
among temporal things, three would have chiefly given him delight; viz. to have
seen ancient Rome in its glory; to have heard Tully haranguing; and, chiefly,
Paul preaching, and animating his sublime sentiments, and the divine truths,
with the ardour of his enraptured soul, the thunder of his most powerful
eloquence, and the transporting fire of his countenance. “Romam triumphantem
Tullium perorantem et Paulum prædicantem.” [back]

Note 95. St. Austin beautifies his sermons with scarcely any
other figures than interrogations, antitheses, and jingling quibbles of words,
to which his quick, lively imagination inclined him, and which were best
relished by the Africans in that age. But he checked the turns of his fancy by
the ingenious simplicity of his pious affecting sentiments, which make his
discourse every where tender and persuasive. All his works plainly show how
full his soul was of the love of God, and he knew very well how to express to
others the strong sense he had of it. [back]

Note 115. St. Austin wrote, in 393, in two books, An Exposition
of the Sermon of our Lord on the Mount, (Matt. v. vi. vii.)
in which is comprised the perfection of the divine precepts which form the true
Christian spirit. This work contains many useful lessons of virtue, especially
against rash judgment. The holy father in the second book explains the Lord’s
Prayer. His one hundred and twenty-four tracts on the gospel of St. John were
begun by him in 416, and are homilies which he preached every day of the week.
In them he often confutes the Arians, Manichees, Donatists, and Pelagians. He
shows the Donatists that their sufferings, of which they boasted, could never
avail them, much less procure the glory of martyrs, because they suffered not
for Christ, being out of his church, and destitute of charity. (Tr. 6, in
Joan.) He excellently inculcates the grievous evil of the least venial sin
which is deliberately committed, and easily multiplied, (Tr. 1, et tr. 12, n.
14,) and the fruit and advantages of divine love, the proof of which is the
most fruitful observance of the divine commandments. (Tr. 82, 83.) In his ten tracts
on the first epistle of St. John, he draws at length the portraiture of divine
charity, and recommends (Tr. 9,) the necessary fear of God’s judgments, which
paves the way to love in a soul.

St. Austin was only priest when he wrote, in 394, his Exposition of
St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, in which, among other precepts, he lays
down discreet rules of charity to be observed in correcting others,
particularly that it be always done out of a pure motive of charity, and that
this be made appear to him who is corrected. About the same time he composed
his Exposition of several passages in the Epistle to the Romans, in answer to
difficulties proposed to him; also, the beginning of an Exposition upon the
Epistle to the Romans, which he never finished, being deterred by the length
and difficulty of the task.

His Enarrations, or Discourses on the Psalms, which he finished in
415, take up the fourth tome of his works. He professes first to explain the
literal sense, but adapts it almost always to Christ and his church, and often
gives only an exposition that is spiritual or moral: after this, by allusions
or allegories, he draws some moral instruction very profitable to the people.
This work is too much undervalued by Beausobre, though it is not so much a
literal exposition of the Psalter as a collection of Christian maxims and rules
of piety, which the author usually enforces in a pathetic manner, especially on
penance, divine love, contempt of the world, and prayer. (On which see Enar. in
Ps. xxx.) St. Fulgentius owed his conversion to the reading of St. Austin’s
discourse on the thirty-sixth Psalm, where he treats on the last judgment,
&c. In these discourses he often speaks of the obligation of giving alms,
for which he exhorts every one to set apart every tenth penny out of his
revenues or gains. (Enar. in Ps. 128.) He frequently repeats what the rest of
the fathers inculcate, that all possessions which are superfluous belong by
right to the poor. (In Ps. cxlvii. &c.) He complains that many measure their
pretended necessities by the demands of luxury, vanity, pride, and
extravagance, and he says, “We shall have many things superfluous, if we
content ourselves with necessaries; but, if we listen to vanity, nothing will
be enough. Seek what suffices for the work of God, not what inordinate passions
crave. (In Ps. cxlvii. n. 12, p. 1658, t. 4.) You say, you have children. Count
one more in your family. Give something to Christ.” (In Ps. xxxviii. F. A. p.
313.) “Some lay up for their children, and these for their children, and even
for great-grand-children; but what do they set apart for Christ? what for their
own souls? Among the children which they have on earth, let them count one
brother whom they have in heaven. Let them afford him a share to whom they owe
all.” (In Ps. lxxxviii. n. 14, p. 433.)

St. Austin wrote
certain other books on the scripture, not by way of sermons. The first which he
composed after his return into Africa was an imperfect book upon Genesis, in
which he explains the history of the creation against the Manichees, and shows
the origin of sin to be not from God, but from the malice of the creature, and
the abuse which it makes of free-will. The distinction he here makes of four
senses of the holy scripture is famous: the historical, which takes
place in relating matters of fact; the allegorical, which explains what
is spoken by figures; the analogical, which compares together the Old
and New Testament, and refers the first to the latter; and the ætiological,
which points out the reasons of the actions and discourses related in the
scriptures. Some moderns add the anagogical sense, by which the sacred
text is applied to the kingdom of heaven, to which it conducts us. St. Austin,
in his twelve books upon Genesis, according to the letter, which he began in
401, when he was bishop, pursues the same method as in the foregoing work, in
expounding the history of the creation against the Manichees; but starts many
difficulties which he leaves for a further discussion.

His seven books On the Particular Ways of Speech in the Seven first
Books of the Old Testament, are answers to several difficult questions on the
Pentateuch, and the books of Josue and Judges. This is a curious and learned
work, full of judicious remarks, in which he adheres closely to the literal
sense. His notes upon Job are short hints which he wrote in the margin of the
sacred text, and are a key to a literal exposition, discovering useful notions
which may be further improved. The Speculum, or looking-glass, taken out of the
scripture, is a collection of passages for the direction of manners, compiled
in 427. His Harmony, or book On the Agreement of the Evangelists, was composed
in four books, about the year 399. His two books of Questions on the Gospels
are of the same date, and contain the answers to forty-seven difficulties
propounded to him on the gospel of St. Matthew, and to fifty-one on that of St.
Luke.

These comments on several parts of the Old and New Testament make
up the two parts of the third tome of this father’s works in the Benedictin
edition; and to them are prefixed his four books On the Christian Doctrine,
begun by him in 397. In the first book he lays down general principles for the
study of the holy scriptures, for the understanding of which he requires unfeigned
faith and sincere charity. In the second, he says that the degrees by which we
may attain to the perfect knowledge of true wisdom are, the fear of God, piety,
knowledge, courage, counsel, and purity of heart. He sums up the canonical
books of scripture; and, among the translations thereof, prefers the ancient
Latin, as being the most literal and clearest; and, among the Greek versions,
he adheres to the Septuagint. In the third book he gives rules for
distinguishing the senses of the sacred text, especially the proper or literal
from the figurative. In the fourth, which he added in the year 426, he says
that, as the scriptures are to be expounded by preachers for the instruction of
others, he advises that, in the first place, they prepare themselves for this
function by prayer, and that their lives be answerable to their sermons.

The sixth tome of St. Austin’s works comprises his dogmatical books
upon several points of morality and discipline. His book of eighty-three
questions contains his resolutions of as many difficulties upon different
subjects on which he had been consulted. Simplician had no sooner succeeded St.
Ambrose, who died on the 4th of April, in 397, but he propounded to St. Austin
certain difficulties concerning the text of St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans
relating to predestination, and others regarding other parts of the scripture.
St. Austin, who had been lately consecrated bishop, answered him by his two
books to Simplician, in which he corrected his former notions and expressions in
his exposition of several passages in the epistle of the Romans, written in
394, not sufficiently accurate on the subject of divine grace. He was convinced
of the absolute necessity of that supernatural succour by that passage: What
hast thou which thou hast not received? as he says in his book On the
Predestination of the Saints, (c. 4,) and in that On the Gift of Perseverance.
(c. 20, 21.) And he cautions us, that he only wrote accurately upon the subject
of grace from the time he was made bishop. His book of eight questions to
Dulcitius, a tribune in Africa, contains answers to several difficulties
proposed by that gentleman in 421.

In his treatise Concerning the Belief of those Things that are not
Conceived, he proves, in favour of faith, that many things are believed that
are not conceived or apprehended by the senses, as when we love a friend or a
stranger merely upon the reputation of his probity. In his book On Faith and
Good Works, he confutes certain errors, as that no one that has been baptized can
be damned eternally, &c. His book On Faith and the Symbol, is an exposition
of all the articles of the creed, which he delivered whilst he was only priest,
in presence of a synod assembled at Hippo in 393. In his book on Faith and
Works, he demonstrates that faith will not save us without good works. His
Enchiridion, or Manual, was addressed to Laurentius, a pious Roman lord,
brother of Dulcitius, who, in 421, had desired of him an abridgment of the
Christian religion. St. Austin shows that it is comprised in the three virtues
of faith, hope, and charity, by which we worship and glorify God, and render
him the spiritual homage of our souls.

In his book On the Christian Combat, he exhorts us to arm ourselves
against temptations by a lively faith, mortification, and the succour of grace.
In that On Catechizing the Ignorant, he prescribes the method of teaching the
catechism usefully, so that the hearer may believe what is spoken, may hope
what he believes, and may love what he hopes for. He would have it taught in
such a manner as to be rendered agreeable and entertaining, and the grace of
the Holy Ghost to be often implored in this holy function. His book On the Care
for the Dead was addressed to St. Paulinus in 421, of which work mention has
been made in the life of that saint. His discourse On Patience is a
recommendation of that virtue. In his sermon On the Creed he mentions that all
adult persons learned it by heart before they were baptized, and recited it
every night and morning. That On Fasting shows its advantages. In that On the
Plunder of Rome by Alaric, he shows that calamity was an effect of a just and
merciful Providence. He says that, in 396, the Emperor Arcadius and all the
citizens abandoned Constantinople one day, fearing it was going to be destroyed
by a ball of fire which appeared in the air; but that God having spared it
through their tears and prayers, they soon returned to their former disorders.
(t. 6, p. 622.) In his treatise On the Prediction of Devils he proves that
their oracles could never foretel anything, but what they could learn by
natural means, or in their natural causes, or by subtle conjectures. [back]

Note 144. Besides the works above mentioned, which St.
Austin composed against the Manichees, he wrote, in 391, soon after he was
ordained priest, his book, On the Advantage of Believing, to reclaim his friend
Honoratus from that heresy. In this work he overthrows the Manichean principle,
That the light of reason suffices to discover to us the truth, without faith,
or the use of authority. He shows that it is wisdom, not rash credulity, to
believe those that are worthy of credit, even in matters of civil life; and
especially that true wisdom never can be attained without consulting authority.
He demonstrates that the authority of the Catholic church justly deserves and
commands our respect and assent, and says, “Why shall we make any difficulty to
throw ourselves upon the authority of the Catholic church, which hath always
maintained herself by the succession of bishops in the apostolic sees, in spite
of all the endeavours of heretics condemned by her, by the people’s faith, by
the decision of councils, and by the authority of miracles? It is either a
matchless impiety, or an indiscreet arrogancy, not to acknowledge her doctrine
for a rule of our faith,” &c.

About the same time he composed his book, Of the Two Souls, against
that error of the Manichees, asserting that every man has two souls, the one
good, of a divine substance, and the other evil, of the nature of darkness,
proper to the flesh. Among the twelve disciples whom Manes sent to preach in
different nations, the most famous was Adimantus, who was the same with Addas,
according to St. Austin, (Cont. Adv. leg. l. 2, c. 12,) though Beausobre thinks
them distinct, because otherwise the names of all these twelve disciples would
not have reached us. Beausobre thinks Adimantus first introduced Manicheism
into Africa; for the Manichees in the West held him almost in equal veneration
with his master Manes, and Faustus said of him: “The most learned and wonderful
Adimantus alone, after our blessed father Manicheus, worthy of all our
admiration.” (apud S. Aug. l. 1, c. 2.) His writings were also famous in the
East, as appears from the twenty-five books written against him by the learned
Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, which are extant in Syriac, in the hands of the
Nestorians, as Cave proves from the testimony of Ebedjesu. Adimantus had
written a book in Latin, in which he pretended to show an opposition between
the Old and the New Testament. This work St. Austin refuted by his book Against
Adimantus, in 394, justifying the agreement between the passages that were
objected. Having refuted the disciple he took the master in hand, by his book
against Manes’s epistle of the foundation, in which that heresiarch had couched
the principal articles which he proposed to his followers. St. Austin gives us
his words for that part of the letter which he refutes, and demonstrates his
principles to be advanced by him without the least shadow of proof, and to be
contrary even to reason and common sense. This father lays down his reasons for
adhering to the Catholic church in these terms: “Several motives keep me in the
bosom of the Catholic church; the general consent of nations and people, an
authority grounded upon miracles, upheld by hope, perfected with charity, and
confirmed by antiquity; the succession of bishops from St. Peter to our time;
and the name of the Catholic church, which is so peculiar to the true church,
that though all heretics call themselves Catholics, yet when you ask in any
country whatever, where the Catholics meet, they dare not show the place of
their assemblies.” He says, “I would not believe the gospel, if the authority
of the church did not move me thereto.” (l. cont. Ep. Fundamenti, c. 5.)

St. Austin, in his first books, Against Faustus, justifies the
passages of the New Testament relating to the genealogy of Christ, and the
mystery of the incarnation, which Faustus pretended to have been falsified; and
in the fifth reproaches the Elect among the Manichees with voluptuousness and
avarice, notwithstanding their hypocrisy, and opposes to them the sincere
virtue and penitential lives of many Catholics. From the sixth to the
twenty-third book he is taken up in defending the Old Testament, after which he
returns again to the New. In the twentieth, he takes occasion from the Jewish
sacrifices to reproach the Manichees with paying a superstitious honour to the
sun, moon, and stars. Faustus objected to the Catholics their veneration and
festivals of martyrs. To this, St. Austin answered, that they honoured the
martyrs in order to partake in their merits, to be assisted by their prayers,
and exited to imitate their example; but never paid to them the worship of latria,
which is due to God alone, nor offered sacrifices to them, but only to God in
thanksgiving for their graces.

In his two books Against Felix, or the acts of a conference with
him, he confutes the Manichean system concerning the nature of God, and the origin
of evil. Soon after, he composed against these heretics a book, On the Nature
of God, in which he handles the same subject more fully. Secundinus, a
Manichee, having by a letter urged St. Austin to return to that sect, the saint
answered him by a book, which he preferred to all his other writings against
those heretics. He gives in it the reasons of his conversion, and overthrows
the principles of Manicheism. This work is entitled: Against Secundinus.
Several years after this, an anonymous book of some ancient Marcionite, or
other such heretic, who denied that God was author of the Old Testament, and
that he created the world, being put into the hands of several persons at
Hippo, St. Austin confuted it about the year 420, by his two books, Against the
Adversary of the Law and the Prophets. These works against the Manichees are
published in the eighth tome of the Benedictin edition; with those against the
Arians, and his book against the Origenists and Priscillianists.

His conflict with the Arians was begun by an Answer he published in
417, to an Arian sermon which contained the chief objections against the
divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. His conference with Maximinus, an
Arian bishop, and his two books against him, which were written to check his
boastings after the conference, were the fruit of his labours in 428. His
fifteen books, On the Trinity, were begun in 400, and finished in 416, and are
rather a dogmatical than a controversial treatise on that mystery. In the
beginning, he lays down just cautions against any false idea of God, either
apprehending him as a corporeal substance, or as a limited spirit, like a soul,
consequently liable to imperfections; for God is infinite, immense, and
incomprehensible. In the eight first books he proves the unity of the divine
essence, and the trinity of the Persons; he discourseth in the fourth of the
incarnation of the Son, and, in the fifth, he refutes the sophisms of heretics.
In the latter books, he endeavours to explain the Trinity, of which he finds an
imperfect emblem in man, namely, in his spirit or soul, his knowledge of
himself, and his love of himself; and again, in his memory, understanding, and
will, three powers of the same mind, though these, and all other
representations, are infinitely imperfect. He teaches (l. 153,) that the Son
proceeds from the Father by his understanding, or knowledge of himself, (he
being the Father’s internal real subsisting Word, consubstantial to him,) and
the Holy Ghost by his will, as he is the eternal subsisting love of the Father
and the Son. (See on this Corn. A Lapide on John i. and 1 John i.) Cassiodorus
observes, that this work of St. Austin requires in the reader great penetration
and attention. To these polemical writings in the eighth tome, are prefixed his
Treatise against the Jews and his Succinct History of Heresies, addressed to
Quodvultdeus, deacon of Carthage, and containing a list of eighty-eight
heresies, beginning with the Simonians, and ending with the Pelagians. It was
compiled in 428, chiefly from the works of SS. Epiphanius and Philastrius.

His great work, Of the City of God, consists of twenty-two books,
and is a very learned apology for the Christian religion. In the ten first
books he refutes the slanders of the heathens, showing that the Christian
religion was not the cause of the fall of Rome; for the very barbarians who
plundered it, granted a privilege of asylum to the churches of the apostles,
and the sepulchres or martyrs, which no heathens did to the temples of their
gods. St. Austin shows that temporal calamities are often advantageous to the
virtuous; many under these gave heroic proofs of patience, chastity, and all
virtues; whereas the boasted Lucretia and Cato murdered themselves out of
cowardice and impatience under afflictions. (l. 1.) He mentions the impiety and
vices of the pagan Romans, the obscenities practised in their religious rites,
the cruelty of their civil wars much more horrible than that of the Goths, and
the voluptuousness, avarice, and ambition of the latter ages of the republic,
which he dates from their building of the first amphitheatre, which Scipio
Nasica prudently, but in vain, opposed. (l. 1 and 2.) He shows, that greater
calamities had often befallen the world in the reign of idolatry. (l. 3.) And
that the enlargement of the Roman empire could not be ascribed to any idols.
Though great empires, without justice, are but great robberies, (which he
proves at large, l. 4,) he thinks that God might give the pagan Romans victory,
as a temporal recompence of some moral virtues; setting before our eyes, that
if the imperfect virtues of heathens are so rewarded, what will be the
recompence of true virtue in eternal glory! Confuting the doctrine of destiny,
he shows, that God’s foreknowledge agrees with man’s free-will; and he gives an
admirable description of the happiness of a virtuous prince, which he places
altogether in his piety, not in temporal felicity, though he mentions and sets
forth the temporal prosperity of Constantine and Theodosius. (l. 5.) He shows the
ridiculous folly of the theology and pretended divinities of the heathens. (l.
6, 7.) He refutes the theology of their philosophers, even of the Platonists,
whom he prefers to the rest, but who all honoured demons as subaltern deities;
whereas no Christian priest offers sacrifice to Peter, Paul, or Cyprian, but to
God upon the monuments of martyrs. (l. 8.) He proves all the demons of the
heathen philosophers to be evil spirits. (l. 9.) Good angels neither require
adoration nor sacrifices, and miracles performed by their interposition, are
wrought by God’s power, who by them makes himself known to men. (l. 10.)

In the following twelve books he treats of the two cities of God
and the world; describing in the four first of these books, their original; in
the four next, their progress; and in the four last, their respective ends. He
makes his transition from the diversity of good and bad angels, to speak of
their creation, and that of the visible world. (l. 11.) Next he proceeds to the
creation of man, and his fall. (l. 12, 13, 14.) He pursues the history of the
two cities through the first patriarchs, from Cain and Abel to Noe’s flood,
making the ark to represent the church, and illustrating his narrative with
curious allegories and reflections. (l. 15.) In the last chapter of the
fourteenth book, he observes, that self-love to the contempt of God, and the
love of God to the contempt of self-love, have built these two opposite cities
of God and the world, and characterise and distinguish their citizens. This history
he carries down to Solomon, (l. 16, 17,) then resumes the history of the world
in that of the ancient monarchies, beginning with that of the Assyrians in the
East, and the small kingdom of Sicyon in Greece, the two first that were
erected. He every where enlivens his narration with ingenious reflections, and
closes it with the triumph of Christ over hell, in his incarnation and death,
and the establishment of his church, which is victorious over persecutions and
heresies, and will endure till his second coming at the last day. (l. 18.) In
the nineteenth book, he treats of the latter end of both cities; the
inhabitants of each aim at sovereign felicity, or the chiefest good, but those
of the terrestrial know so little of it, that the wisest among their
philosophers were at a loss to find in what it consisted, Varro reckoning two
hundred and eighty-eight different opinions among them about it; only the true
religion discovers to men this most important truth, and shows, that it
consists in eternal life, and that we cannot be happy in this life, but only in
hope, which gives a kind of anticipation of the peace and joy to come. In the
twentieth book he gives a description of the last judgment, and the general
resurrection. In the twenty-first, he speaks of the end of the terrestrial
city, and of the horrible torments of hell, especially their eternity, which he
proves clearly from our most holy faith; whence, he says, the church never
prays for the salvation of devils or damned souls; though he acknowledges temporary
chastisements for the purgation of smaller sins after death, in those who here
belonged to Christ, and did not die separated from him by any grievous sin. The
subject of his last book is the glorious immortality of the saints in the
heavenly city. He mentions the qualities of glorified bodies, and proves their
resurrection from that of Christ, and from the faith of the church, confirmed
by undoubted prophecies, and by miracles; he relates several wrought in his own
time by the relics of saints, both at Milan and in Africa, to some of which he
had been an eye-witness. He finishes the portraiture of the happiness of the
blessed, by a sketch of what their souls will enjoy. “How great,” said he,
“will be that felicity that shall be disturbed with no evil, and where no other
business shall be followed but that of singing the praises of God, who shall be
all in all? Every inhabitant of this divine city shall have a will perfectly
free, exempt from all evil, filled with all manner of good, enjoying without
intermission the delights of an immortal felicity, without remembrance either
of his faults, or of his miseries, otherwise than to bless his Redeemer for his
deliverance.” The prolix commentaries of Lewis Vives and Leonardus Coquæus are
full of erudition, but of very little service for illustrating the text of St.
Austin. This work contains a surprising variety of learning, and is very
pleasant and entertaining, as Macedonius vicar of Africa, elegantly testifies.
(Ap. St. Aug. ep. 154.)

Our holy doctor, in his Retractations, gives this caution
concerning his two treatises Against Lying, that they are both so intricate,
that he had once some thoughts of suppressing them. But this seems to regard
only some of his mystical interpretations of certain scriptural examples; for
the principles which he lays down are most just and important. The Origenists,
with Plato, maintained, that officious lies are lawful for a good and necessary
end. To confute this pernicious doctrine. St. Austin composed, in 395, his book
On Lying. He defines lying to be a disagreement between a man’s words and his
mind, for to lie is to speak what we do not think. He takes into consideration
the objections brought from examples of lies mentioned in the Old Testament, as
of Jacob, Judith, &c. and answers, that the patriarchs who seem to have
lied, did not intend that what they said should be understood in the usual
sense; but that they meant to discover, by a prophetical spirit, those things
that were signified by their actions, which were figurative. He throws out this
answer chiefly for fear of any concessions which the Manichees might abuse to
insult the patriarchs, or the Old Testament; but adds, both in this and the
following treatise, that if this solution appear not satisfactory, we must
condemn such lies as we do David’s sins; and says, that at least the Holy Ghost
never approves any example of lying, unless it be by comparing it with a
greater evil. He then demonstrates that we must never do the least evil,
whatever good may be procured by it; and that it is clear, both from the holy
scriptures and the light of reason, that all lying is essentially a sin. Whence
he concludes, that no lie is ever to be told, to preserve our chastity, or
life, or that of others, or secure the salvation of our neighbour, as to
procure baptism for our dying child, or for any other reason or good whatever,
as it can never be lawful to commit adultery, theft, or any other sin, for such
an end. Death and all torments ought to be more eligible than the least lie;
nor can the evils of others be imputed to us which we cannot prevent without
sin.

His book Against Lying, to Consentius, was composed long after the
former, upon the same principles, in the year 420, and is clearer and more
methodical than the former. He wrote it to confute both the error of the
Priscillianists, (who held lying, even to conceal their religious sentiments,
lawful,) and that of some Catholics in Spain, who pretended lying allowable, in
order to detect those heretics, upon which case Consentius had consulted St.
Austin. The holy doctor shows we are bound often to conceal the truth; but must
never prevent any evils by lying, and mentions one Firmus, bishop of Tagasté
who, having concealed an innocent man from the judge, who was a Pagan, chose
rather to suffer the rack, than to discover, or by lying to say he knew not
where he was. In such cases, he will have us only raise our hearts earnestly to
God, and commit to him the event. (See L. Contra Mendac. c. 18, 19, 20.) That
the scripture condemns all kind of lies, is what the whole Catholic Church
teaches with St. Austin. (See Alexander III. Cap. Super eo. 4, De Usuris.) Some
have pretended to justify equivocations by his mystical interpretations of the
passages relating to Jacob and others; some of which Natalis Alexander, out of
respect to the memory of great men, stretched so far as to give his adversary
some handle for wrangling as to this question. But St. Austin proposes his
first answer to those examples in such a manner as not to rest the cause upon
this solution; for he adds, that if it seem not satisfactory as to any of those
ancient saints, and if they seem not to be excused from a lie, they cannot be
excused from sinning, unless upon the plea of invincible ignorance. The same
principles he again sets forth, Enchir. c. 22, t. 6, p. 205. God, who is truth
itself, can never approve any kind of lying; nor can anything be more
destructive of civil society and commerce, than that doctrine which allows it
by principle. It would be more eligible to live among dumb persons than in a
nation of liars. Artificial lies, or mental reservations and equivocations, are
not less condemned by St. Austin, both in his definitions, and in the whole
force of his reasoning, than any other kind of lies, and are the more
pernicious, as they are more artfully disguised. To allow them in religious
matters, or oaths, on any account whatever, is an error condemned by the
Catholic Church. (See the Propositions 26, 27, 28, condemned by Innocent XI.
and those condemned by the clergy of France in 1700, in Steyeart, F. Antoine,
&c. By the same principle is demonstrated the essential iniquity of all
lying in whatever circumstances, and on all subjects. Let those who dispute
this point have dealings with persons of this cast, who in all affairs, which
themselves shall judge of sufficient importance to require it, study by artful
equivocations to raise mists before them to deceive them; experience in their
own case will help to open their eyes, and make them desire that persons of
such principles should carry them marked on their foreheads, as princes, by
declaring open war, warn enemies to stand upon their guard. How easily would
these new doctors have disengaged St. Austin in all his difficulties how to
save the life of the innocent man, and rescue the dying unbaptized infant out
of the hands of infidels? On ancient authors who have allowed some kinds of
lies, see Grotius De Jure belli et pacis, l. 3, c. 1.

Among the Protestants, James Saurin, minister at the Hague,
declared himself, against most of his brethren, an advocate for lying in
certain cases. Mr. Hutcheson, the late celebrated professor at Glasgow, in his
Moral Philosophy, (t. 2, c. 10 et 17,) condemns, very justly, mental
restrictions and equivocations, yet, by an unaccountable inconsistency, allows
lying in cases of necessity, especially in masters and princes, in whom
certainly the character of inviolable uprightness and sincerity is of so much
the greater importance, (even in the smallest matters,) as in them is centred
public faith, and as their example has the most prevailing and extensive
influence. Mr. Hutcheson’s reasoning equally excuses murders and other sins,
when compensated by notable public advantages. He mistakes the case of putting
to death an innocent man, to save his country from ruin, through the unjust
vengeance of some tyrant; on which partly he grounds his false doctrine in
favour of lying in like cases. Such a person is bound by the rule of charity
for his country, to deliver himself up; and if he refuse, may be justly
commanded to do it, and punished for disobedience. Such principles which allow
evil to be done in cases of pressing necessity, suit Machiavellian politicians,
but they overthrow the whole system of true virtue, and the pure morality of
the gospel. Agreeably to this, Alexander III. declares, that “The holy
scripture forbids us to lie for the life of another.” (Cap. Super eo 4, De
Usuris.) And St. Austin demonstrates that no necessity or authority can ever
dispense with the inviolable law of truth. He says: “When thou liest for the
sake of humility, if thou wert not before a sinner, thou art now become one.”
(Serm. 182, ol. 19, de Verbis Dom.) And he teaches us, with all divines, that
“It is not lawful to lie for the sake of piety; for this is the greatest and
most heinous crime of execrable lying.” (L. de Mendac. c. 21, p. 444, t. 6.)
Who then can excuse the effrontery of Beausobre, Middleton, and some others,
who accuse St. Austin of forging false miracles, or knowingly abetting forgeries,
and this without any other view than to incur, by his own avowed principles,
the guilt of eternal damnation. We say the same of most other fathers. For the
primitive Christians were ready to suffer the most cruel torments and deaths
rather than to be guilty of the least lie, as St. Justin (Apol. 1, ol. 2,) and
Eusebius (l. 6, Præpar. Evang.) testify at large. “Though you apply fire and
the sword to his body, he will stand firm and steadfast, and will cry out with
unshaken constancy: ‘Let your flames and razors be made ready; cut, burn this
body, satiate your raging thirst with this blood—the stars will sooner fall
from heaven than you will extort from us one single word of a lie,’”
&c. [back]

Note 153. His writings against the Donatists fill the
ninth tome of his works. The first of these is the hymn or psalm Abecedarius,
which is divided into parts, each of which begins with a different letter of
the alphabet, containing a short account and confutation of this schism,
expressed in terms adapted to the capacity of the common people, who were
taught this hymn. The saint composed it as an antidote against the heresy, upon
his first coming to Hippo. Parmenianus, the successor of Donatus in the see of
Carthage, had been confuted by St. Optatus, but left behind him a letter which
he had written against Tichonius, a person of his own sect, who had published
some scruples which he had concerning the universality of the church foretold
by the prophets. This work of Parmenianus was looked upon by the Donatists as a
complete justification of their schism. St. Austin therefore took it in hand
about the year 401, and clearly confuted it by his three books Against
Parmenianus, in which he shows that the Church of Christ, according to the
prophets, is the church of all nations, and is not denied by the society of
some wicked livers in her communion; and he confutes the slanders of the
Donatists concerning the origin of their sect.

In his seven books On Baptism, against the Donatists, composed
about the same time, he shows the mistake of St. Cyprian, and proves that this
sacrament may be validly conferred by heretics, and cannot be reiterated when
it has been duly administered by them, any more than when it has been
administered by sinners within the pale of the church. Petilianus, who had
formerly been a lawyer, and was made by the Donatists bishop of Cirtha in
Numidia, acquired a great reputation in his party, by his noisy declamatory
eloquence. (S. Aug. l. 1, contr. Petilian. c. 1, l. 3, c. 16.) An epistle which
he published against the Catholics, drew from St. Austin three books, entitled,
Against Petilianus. In the second and third book, the saint proves the church
must be universal, and spread throughout the world, and takes off the force of
Petilianus’s objections, borrowed from passages of scripture misapplied.

The saint’s treatise On the Unity of the Church was a pastoral
charge addressed by him to his own flock, in which he points out the true
church by this mark, that it is one and catholic, or universal, and spread over
the whole earth: consequently it could not be confined to Africa, to the house
of Lucilla, or to a few lurkers at Rome. Cresconius, a Donatist, and a
grammarian by profession, having wrote against St. Austin, in defence of
Petilianus, the saint, about the year 409, answered him in four books,
retorting upon him all his own arguments, and the conduct of the Donatists in
the schism of the Maximianists, by which he invincibly demonstrated, (l. 4,)
that they condemned themselves. In his book On the Unity of Baptism, against
Petilianus, he confutes, by the authority and practice of the universal Church,
the error of the Donatists in reiterating the sacrament of baptism, and shows
that the Church is composed of good and bad, but that the good are not to be
found out of its pale. He allows indeed those to be brethren in the eyes of
God, who are in the true church in the sincere desire of their hearts, and use
all endeavours impartially to discover it, but are deprived of its external
communion merely by the circumstance of invincible ignorance, though God alone
can be judge of this interior disposition; but the church only considers
exterior acts or circumstances, as the direct object of her laws of discipline.
This maxim of St. Austin appears from the very definition which he gives of an
heretic; viz., that he is a person who by criminal passions, or with a view to
temporal motives, publishes or embraces an erroneous doctrine in faith. (l. De
Utilitate credendi in princip.) Also from his letter to Glorious, Eleusius,
Felix, and Grammaticus, all Donatists, written about the year 398, where he
says: “When they who defend their opinion, though false and perverse, yet with
no obstinate malice, having received it from their parents, and diligently seek
the truth, ready to be corrected, when they have found it, are no way to be
ranked among heretics.—If I did not think you such, perhaps I should not
trouble you with my letters.” (Ep. 43, ol. 162, t. 2, p. 88.)

St. Austin compiled a Breviculum or Abridgment of the conference of
Carthage; the greater part of the Acts whereof have been published entire by
Baluze. (Conc. p. 118.) He composed and inscribed to the lay-part of the
Donatists, a treatise after the conference, wherein he set off all the
advantages which the Catholics had gained by it, and the shifts and the
evasions which the Donatist bishops had used to prevent its being held, and in
it to stave off the main business. Gaudentius, one of the Donatist disputants
in the conference, continued so obstinate to defend his sect, that he
threatened to burn himself with his church, rather than to suffer the emperor’s
officers to restore his church to the Catholics. St. Austin, in two books
against him, refuted, in 420, two letters which he had written, the first of
which was an impious defence of suicide. In 418, St. Austin being obliged to go
to Cæsarea, (now called Tenez,) made a moving sermon on the unity of the
Church, (t. 9, p. 518,) in presence of Emeritus, the Donatist bishop, who was
one of the chief men of his party, and had spoken most in the conference of
Carthage, where he was one of the commissioners or disputants. Two days after,
St. Austin, St. Alipius, and others, held a conference in his presence, but he
refused to speak, and persisted obstinate, though his friends and relations,
and almost his whole flock, had embraced the Catholic faith. [back]

Note 157. Barbeyrec, professor at Lausanne, in his
preface to the translation of Puffendorf, On the Law of Nature and of Nations,
wherein he wrecks his impotent spleen against the fathers of the church,
because their authority and his religion cannot stand together, injuriously
styles St. Austin, “The great patriarch of persecuting Christians.” Dom.
Ceillier has sufficiently confuted this slander. (Apologie des SS. Pères, ch.
14, p. 423.) Those heretics who, like the Donatists, instead of imitating the
patience of apostles and martyrs, first disturb the public peace, set up the
standard of rebellion and persecution, against all laws and authority, are
justly to be restrained by lawful authority from such acts of violence. Yet St.
Austin, even after he had so far changed his sentiments in this regard, as to
applaud the imperial laws against the Donatists, on account of the public
tranquillity which was restored by them, and the conversion of many Donatists,
who till then had been restrained from inquiring into the truth, for fear of
their fellow-sectaries, yet he still returned the Donatists good for evil; and
when they had laid ambushes to murder him, and filled his diocess with outrages
and violences, he employed his authority to obtain their pardon. See ep. 88,
written by the Catholics of Hippo to Januarius, a Donatist bishop, and St.
Austin’s ep. 185, p. 3, 4, written to Count Boniface in 412. [back]

Note 169. His name in the language of his country, was
Morgan, that is, Of the Sea, or bordering upon it: which abroad he
changed into the Greek word of the same import, [Greek]. See Usher, Antiq. c.
8, and Le Clerc in his History of Pelagianism, from Julian. 1. adv. August,
&c. The tribune Marcellinus who had presided the year before at the
conference at Carthage, being perplexed by certain objections started by the
Pelagians, consulted St. Austin about them. The holy bishop answered him, in
412, by three books entitled, On the Demerit of Sins, and their Remission,
otherwise, On the Baptism of Children, proving in the first that man is become
subject to death only by the demerit of sin; that the sin of Adam has infected
all his race, and that children are baptized in order to obtain the remission
of original sin. In the second, he teaches that all men can avoid every actual
sin; yet that no one lives entirely exempt from all smaller sins, for the
remission of which we are always to pray. In the third he answers some
objections.

Marcellinus did not understand how men have the power of avoiding
all venial sins if no man ordinarily does it. St. Austin, in order to give him
satisfaction, composed his book On the Spirit and the Letter, in which he
warmly disputes against the enemies of divine grace, shows by several examples
that there are things possible which never come to pass, and explains the
succour of divine grace, which is shed by the Holy Ghost into our hearts, and
which makes us love and accomplish those good actions which are commanded us.
He shows that grace does not destroy or impair freewill, but strengthens it,
gives it exertion, or act in supernatural virtue. In reconciling grace and
freewill he acknowledges a mystery which he will not be so presumptuous as to
pretend to fathom; but cries out with the apostle, O depth, &c. Rom.
xi. 33. And, Is there any injustice in God? Rom. ix. 14. (L. de Spir. et Litt. c. 34.) This concord of grace and freewill he
every where calls a most difficult question, and frequently answers it only by
having recourse to this exclamation of St. Paul. (De Corrept. et Grat.
c. 8, ep. ad Monachos Adrumet, &c.) He observes that Pelagius sometimes gave the name of grace to freewill
itself, because it is a gift of God; and that he sometimes spoke of the
external grace of preaching, and its impression upon the heart, which he called
an interior grace; but that he used these speeches only that he might disguise
his heresy under subtle evasions, the more easily to deny the necessity of true
interior grace, which he said was only given to render the practice of virtue
more easy, but was not necessary.

A book written by Pelagius, in which the poison of this heresy was
concealed under these equivocations, was put into St. Austin’s hands by
Tinasius and James, two young men eminent for their birth and learning, who had
been disciples of Pelagius, but were converted by our holy doctor, who refuted
that work by his book called, On Nature and Grace. In this he detects those
artifices, and proves that nature is not blamable, though it is weakened by the
corruption of sin, and stands in need of grace to deliver it, to enlighten the
understanding, and to enable the will both to desire and to do good. In this
work he continued to spare the name of Pelagius in 415. About the same time he
composed his small treatise On the Perfection of Righteousness, shewing against
a sophistical book of Celestius, that for a man to pass his whole life without
ever committing the least sin, is a grace which God does not usually grant to
the greatest saints; so that it is ridiculous to believe that man can compass
this by the sole strength of freewill.

Upon the news of Pelagius having justified himself in the council
of Diospolis, St. Austin suspected what the case was, but for want of proofs
waited till he received the acts of that council. Upon which he wrote, in 417,
his book On the Acts of Pelagius, in which he manifestly detected his cheats at
the synod of Diospolis. In 418, after the Pelagian heresy, with its authors,
was condemned by several councils and by Pope Zosimus, he composed against it
his book On the Grace of Jesus Christ, and another On Original Sin, proving
against these heretics in the former the necessity of grace for doing good
works, and attaining to Christian perfection; and, in the latter, the universal
contagion of the sin of Adam, and the necessity of its remission by baptism.
His two books On Marriage and Concupiscence were compiled in 419, in order to
remove a peevish objection of the Pelagians, that if concupiscence be an effect
of sin, and if men are born in sin, marriage must be a sin.

In 420 he published four books On the Soul and its Original,
addressed to one Victor, a convert from the Donatists, to refute several errors
concerning the propagation of original sin in the soul, and to prove that the
doctrine of its pre-existence in another state before this in the body, cannot
be maintained by any Catholic, and that the soul is a spiritual substance. He
says, that though this Victor had advanced in writing several errors here
refuted, he continued nevertheless a Catholic, because he only maintained them
through ignorance, and declared, in the beginning and end of his work, that he
would correct his opinions, if they were found amiss. (l. 3, in fin.) Two
letters, the one written by Julianus of Eclanum, filled with Pelagian
objections, having been industriously scattered about in the city of Rome, and
other places, Pope Boniface, who had succeeded Zosimus in 419, sent them to St.
Austin, and this holy doctor answered them in 420, by his Four Books to
Boniface, against the Pelagians. As to their complaint, renewed by some in our
time, that the bishops had only subscribed to their condemnation, dispersed in
their own sees, without assembling in councils, he shows that few heresies have
been condemned by general councils, but only by the agreement of the pastors,
who detected them, in all parts where they were known. (l. 4, c. 2.)

Julianus of Eclanum had acquired a reputation for virtue, by
distributing his fortune among the poor in a famine, as Genadius mentions, (De
Script. c. 45,) but afterwards is charged with crimes of impurity. (Apud Mar.
Mercator, commonit. c. 4.) Vanity and self-conceit seem to have been the
occasion of his ruin. In four books he disputed virulently against original
sin, and on concupiscence, grace, and the virtues of heathens. St. Austin
answered him in six books written about the year 423. After producing the
testimony of the ancient fathers for original sin, he has many beautiful
reflections concerning their authority. (l. 2, c. 10; l. 1, c. 7.) Julian
having published eight books against St. Austin, filled with bitter invectives,
the saint was prevailed upon by importunities to make him a reply. He produces
Julian’s own terms, and answers them plainly and in few words. He lived only to
finish six books of this, which is called his Imperfect work against Julian.

A numerous monastery at Adrumetum (now called Mahomette in the
kingdom of Tunis) was at that time governed by an abbot called Valentine. Florus,
a monk of this house, having met at Uzalis with St. Austin’s letter to Sixtus
(then priest, afterwards pope) against the Pelagians, (ep. 194,) sent a copy of
it home by his companion Felix. Five or six ignorant monks raised a clamour
against the letter, and against Florus and Felix, as if they denied free-will
in man. The abbot was appealed to, who easily discerned in the letter the style
and doctrine of St. Austin. Evodius, bishop of Uzalis, wrote to the monks to
exhort them to peace and brotherly love; but the animosity continued in spite
of all the abbot’s endeavours to stifle it, he therefore permitted them to send
Cresconius and another Felix, two young monks, to lay the matter before St.
Austin. They accused Florus to him as a Predestinarian; the saint instructed
them in the doctrine of the church, and dismissed them with a letter on that
subject to Valentine and his monks, (ep. 214.) For the instruction of these
monks he wrote, in 426, his book On Grace and Freewill, in which he shows that
neither of these two points must be so maintained as to trespass upon the
other. He desired to see Florus, whom the abbot accordingly sent. St. Austin
was overjoyed to find, upon examination, his faith to have been perfectly
orthodox, and free from the error of predestinarianism, which was only a false
consequence which his ignorant adversaries inferred from the doctrine of grace.
Fearing that they, out of ignorance, leaned towards Pelagianism, he inscribed
to Valentine and his monks his book On Correction and Grace, which he composed
for their use; showing that correction and admonitions to virtue are necessary
because we have free-will; nevertheless, we must not deny the necessity of
divine grace to good actions; the rocks on both sides, on which many have split,
are equally to be avoided.

Among the heathen philosophers of old, some were fatalists,
imagining that the divine foreknowledge of all future events could not be
established but upon the ruins of free-will in men: others, to maintain
free-will, sacrilegiously denied a divine prescience of all human actions.
Pelagian heretics are blind amidst the light of faith, and see not the absolute
necessity of divine grace; Predestinarians, on the other side, ascribe to
divine grace and predestination a necessitating influence which is
incompatible with the active indifference and free election, in which the
essence of liberty consists. This election in Christian virtue is the effect of
grace, but of a grace which gives the exercise or actual exertion of the
free-will, being adapted to the exigency of the free creature; for God by his
omnipotent act moves all things according to their exigency: he is absolute
master of the human will, and by grace the cause of all its good desires; but
inspires them without prejudice to its liberty. St. Austin teaches that grace
is entirely consistent with the exercise of our free-will, which he every where
proves, because without it, precepts and exhortations would be useless, and
chastisement for transgressions unjust.

The late Lord Bollingbroke took up at second-hand the slander of
the Pelagians and Semipelagians against the doctrine of St. Austin, when he
charges it with predestinarianism, and with ascribing to grace a necessitating
force, incompatible with the genuine idea of free-will. Such, indeed, were the
systems of Luther and Calvin, though Melancthon exchanged Predestinarianism for
Pelagianism, amongst the immediate followers of the former, and Arminius did
the same amongst part of the Dutch Calvinists. Notwithstanding the condemnation
of Arminius in the Calvinistical council of Dort, Pelagianism is now the most
prevailing doctrine even amongst Calvinists, as Le Clerc, Bishop Burnet, and
others testify. Those Jansenists who teach that divine grace exerts its power
upon the will with an absolute and simple necessity, are to be ranked
amongst predestinarian heretics, though the system of two delectations (however
false it may appear) falls not under this censure, if it be maintained without
this or any other erroneous condition, or circumstance implied in it; whether
it be restrained to the order of grace, or be extended to all natural actions,
to which Massoulié and Hume have endeavoured to apply it.

The Benedictin edition of St. Austin’s works, in eleven tomes, is
much more correct and complete than the Lovanian or any former. It was first
undertaken by Dom. Delfau, but he was very soon after banished into Lower
Brittany on account of a book which he published, entitled, l’Abbé
Commendataire, in which he severely censures many circumstances of that
institution. Dom. Blampin succeeded him in the task of publishing the works of
St. Austin; but the criticism upon his sermons and the supposititious writings
was the work of Dom. Coutant, the most judicious and correct of all the editors
of that body, after Mabillon, as appears from his edition of St. Hilary, and
that of the Decretals or Epistles of the first popes. The life of St. Austin,
in the Benedictin edition, was translated by Vaillant and De Frische, two
monks, with some inconsiderable alterations from the most accurate thirteenth
volume of Tillemont’s memoirs, which he finished before the other tomes on
account of its importance: the rest, after the sixth, were posthumous, and
wanted his last revisal. [back]

Note 179. The Western empire was at that time torn
asunder by the barbarians ever since the weak reign of Honorius. Alaric the
Goth, after plundering Rome in 310, marched into Gaul; and his brother-in-law
and successor Ataulph settled the kingdom of the Visigoths in Aquitain and the
present Languedoc, making Toulouse his capital. He married Galla Placidia, who,
after he was murdered by his own people, was restored to her brother, and given
by him in marriage to his general Constantius. In the mean time, the Vandals,
Alans, Sueves, and Silinges, loaded with the spoils of the Germans and Gauls,
broke into Spain like an impetuous torrent, driving the Romans into Cantabria
and the mountains of Asturia. The Sueves and some of the Vandals settled
themselves in Galicia, which was then of a much larger extent than it is at
present. The Alans took up their abode in Lusitania, which then reached beyond
Salamanca; and the Vandals with the Silinges possessed themselves of Betica
(now called from them Andalusia) and other southern provinces; but the
Visigoths from Toulouse threatened the new possessors of Spain, and at length
under King Euric or Evaric, poured in like an inundation upon them, in 480, and
reduced all Spain, except what was possessed by the Sueves, whom also they
brought under a kind of dependence, till they afterwards found a favourable
opportunity of making an entire conquest of their territories. The kings of the
Visigoths after this removed their court from Toulouse to Toledo, and resided
in Spain till the irruption of the Saracens or Moors. [back]